3^  J,  ■' 


^ 


^ 


r( 


L,IBRA.RY 


OF   THE 


Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Case,  .T^.'^^sion \.._ 

Secti®n 


Shelf, 

Book,  ^^ 


c  \  ■ 


\ 


/ 

LETTERS 

O  F 

CERTAIN     JEWS 

To    Monsieur    VO  LT  AIRE. 

CONT   AINING 

AN  APOLOGY   FOR   THEIR  OWN  PEOPLE, 

AND 

FOR  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  5 

WITH 
CRITrCAL     REFLECTIONS 

AND 

A  SHORT  COMMENTARY  EXTRACTED 
PROM  A  GREATER. 

>N    TWO    VOLUMES. 


'^     '-   /^iC 


Translated  by  the  Rev.  PHILIP  LEFANU,     D.  D. 


P    H    I   L    A    D    EL    P    HI     A : 
PaiSTED  BT   WILLIAM   YOUNG,   Bookseller,   No.    5a,  Secokh- 

8TRE2T,    THE  CORNER     OF    ChESNUT- STREET. 
M,DCC,XCT. 


THE 

TRANSLATOR 

TO    THE 

READER. 


X  HE  tranflator  of  tRe  following  letters,  thinks  them  vvoi-thy 
ofpublick  attention.  Mr.  de  Voltaire  has  caft  many  criiel  and  ill- 
grounded  afperlions  on  the  Jewifli  nation  and  rehgion,  which  are 
here  examined  and  anfwered.  However,  the  real  piirpofe  of  this 
attack  feems  to  be  the  fame  of  the  deills,  to  undermine  the  chrifti- 
«in  rehgion,  by  dellroying  the  authority  of  the  Old  Teftament  on 
which  it  is  founded.  And  to  this  end  he  has  collcfted  all  the  anti- 
quated objections  of  Collins,  Tindal,  Sec.  and  dreffed  them  up 
anew  for  the  very  fame  purpofe  for  which  tliey  were  hril  propofed. 
Indeed  Mr.  de  Voltaire  feldom  adds  any  thing  from  his  own  fund, 
and  when  he  does,  we  have  no  reafon  to  admire  his  learning  or 
accuracy. 

But,  abdrafted  from  thefe  confiderations,  this  work  may  be  ve-» 
ry  ufetul  to  tliofe  wlio  read  the  fcripture.  Many  difficult  parts  of 
it  are  here  explained,  and  many  deiftical  objeftions  anfwered  in  a 
manner  entirely  new.  Inftances  might  be  given  in  the  affair  of  the 
golden  calf,  Jephtha's  vow,  and  in  feveralpafiages  of  the  prophets, 
which  will  afford  pleafure  and  fatisfaftion  to  all  impartial  enquir- 
ers. There  are  many  curious  obfervations  on  the  Jcwifh  laws,  and 
the  cornparifon  that  is  inftituted  between  them  and  the  laws  of 
modern  nations,  will  contribute  to  give  us  an  higher  opinion  of 
the  Mofaick  code  than  is  generiilly  entertained.  There  are  alio  fe-« 
veral  interefting  particulars  concerning  the  modern  Jews  to  be 
found  here,  which  arc  not  generally  known     by  us  chrittians. 

The  reader  muft  not  lav  too  great  ffrefs  on  the  encomiums, 
which  are  given  to  Mr.  de  Voltaire  thro'  this  work.  Sonne  ot  theni 
are  ironical,  and  others  are  inferted  in  order  to  keep  up  that  fpint 
ef  polite  difputation,  which  the  authors  generally  adhere  to.  As 
a  poet  and  an  hillorian,  Mr.  de  Voltaire  has  met  with  merited  apt 
plaufe  ;  but  he  is  very  far  from  being  equally  well  qualified  fvr  ths 
ctSite  of  acrititk  on  the  facrcd  writings. 


B 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


S 


r"  » 


10  ME  year?  ago,  a  book  wa&  publifhed,  under  the  title  of  Jew- 
ifh  letters,  of  which  Chriitians  had  reafor.  to  complain.  As  none 
ofthe  fons  of  Jacob  owned  them,  as  none  of  thcra  were  convicled 
of  having  wrote  them,  this  is  a  proof  that  thofe  feeming  Jews 
were  feigned  ehara6lers,  and  that  the  whole  correfpondence  wa* 
imaginary.  Which  of  us  would  be  fo  irapnulent  as  to  inveigh  a- 
gainii;  thofe  wlio  tolerate  us,  and  to  turn  their  ceremonies,  their 
opinions  and  caftoms  into  ridicule  i  No  fuch  thing  vvill  be  found 
in  this  colleftion^ 

The  chief  purpofe  of  this  work  fs  to  juftify  our  nation,  which  is 
arraigned  by  a  celebrated  writer,  to  make  him  fenfible  of  fonre 
millakes,  that  have  elcaped  him  in  fpeakingof  our  facied  writings  ;. 
and  to  engage  him  to  corredl  them  in  bis  new  edition.  This  work 
ought  not  to  give  offence  to  chriftians.  On  the  contrary,  wc 
think  that  many  of  them  may  learn  with  pleafure  fome  intcrefting 
particulars  cf  a^  people  on  whom  they  cannot  look  with  indiffe- 
reace,  as  they  are  the  depolitories of  thofe  divine  oracles  on  whiclt 
the  chriftian  faith  is  built^ 

Whiiil  this  calleftion  was  in  the  prefs,  two  excellent  books  havc 
appeared.  In  one  of  them  our  facred  writings  are  vindicated  a- 
gainlt  fhe  Phtlofophy  of  HiJIory,  In  the  other  the  principle  articles 
of //)^  Ph'ihfophical  DuTionary  are  anfwered.  We  think  the  sut'ior 
who  is  attacked  in  this  work-cannot  excufe  himfelf  firom  anfwering^ 
becanfe  his  filen<je  would  be  an  acknowledgment  of  his  defeat, 
Thefe  two  works  are  not  of  fuch  a  nature  as  to  be  confuted  by 
raillery.  Had  they  appeared  fooner,  v/e  would  have  left  our  illul'- 
trious  writer  iiithe  hands  ofthofe  two  learned  chriiLians,v.'I«)  are  far 
fnperiortous  in  fuch  matters. 

In  vain  have  we  called  on  I\^.  de  Vakaire,  to  enter  the  Hits  with 
thofe  champions  who  are  fo  worthy  of  him.  He  has  thouglit  it 
more  prudent  to  defcend  to  lefs  formidable  adverfaries.  He  has 
anfwered  the  authors  of  this  collection,  and  has  done  it  with  that 
air  of  fuperiority  which  weidth  and  talents  infpire. 

The  diilike  and  contempt  which  he  ha;i  fliewn  to  this  colleftion*. 
have  hot  however  fto;  ped  the  quick  tile  of  it.  Two  editions  of  three 
thoufand  copies  have  been  carried  off  at  Laurence  PraiiWs,  bvlide;; 
a  counterfeit  edlti<?n.  at  Liege,  and  an  imprtfiion  of  forje  of  thefe 
letters  feparately^ 

This  then- id  at  Jeaft  thae  third  edition  which  we  lay  before  tlic 
piiblick,  oi  a  ruilcy  h'.puiknt  ivori,  ivbi-ch  can plcnfe  nunc  hut  critic k's 
lalthoul  tajle,  attc!  mu^S  Dc  cl'fplfcil  hy  pcrfiins  of  a  LartuJ,  liberal  caj}. 
This  i-s  the  fcntence  which  Mr.  de  Voltaire  h;us  pronounced.  He 
is  a  comrpetetit  judge,  but  hovve%'er  a-  party  in  the  caufc.  And  ir» 
confequencfi  of  this,  his  opmicm  has  met  with  fome  coatradiction, 

Th's  colivflion  fecnxs  to  have  pleafed  the  public,  and  molt  ofthe 
per;odIc;ii  \f  riterv  have  fpoke  favoiVrably  of  it.  As  foon  as  it  came 
out,  the  l-.'-f  Mr.  Bonnamy  hadened  to  give  an  account  of  it  irv 
the  yourni'I  of  J^rv'tm,  and  he  has  done  it  in  terms  very  ilattering^ 
to  the  authors.     lie  calls  them  harued  aiul polite  j^ciusf  auJ  didf 


Advertisement.  7 

'O/vri  a  learned  and  e:<cellent  colleEl'ion  of  Letters.  In  the  mean  f]in\ 
fays  this  author,  ivkiljl  me  are  preparing  ati  ahjlrad,  of  this  "ujork,  ive 
cannot  be  too  prejftngin  recommending  the  reading  of  it. 

The  author  of  /'  ^nnec  litteniire,  fyc^ks  no  lefs  favor.rably  of  iu 
Theft  letters^  fays  kc,  have  been  re-ally  qjurltten  by    yeivs,  iviih  intent  to 
Jiiftfy  thtir  nation  f  which  has  been  arraigned  by  J^Ir.   l^oltaire,  and  ty 
point  out  many  of  his  errors,  in  f peaking  vf  the  facred  Karilings. 

This  awthor  gives  an  abftraCt  and  thus  concludes  ;  Thefe  letters 
are  worth  reading.  They  dlfcover  indujlry^  erudition  andfnfe.  We 
tann.tt  he  too  earnejl  in  requcJHng  the  auihoi'i  to  continue  their  comments  on 
«ne  part  of  the  writings  of  Air.  de  J'^ohaire.  Thefe  may  be  joined  to  that 
ecfmment  which  is  preparing,  and  almojl  readv,  on  the' other  part  af 
his  'writings.  In  this  Icltter  an  painted  out  all  the  errors,  falfe  qv.ota- 
tions,  andfalfc  dates,  with  which  he  has  Jhtffsd  that  Jlory-booh  whidi 
he  has  given  us  for  anhillory.  Here  tc,o  the  other  learusd  preduiiions 
of  this  great  m^n  are  not  forgotten. 

The  judgment  pafTed  on  thefe  letters  in  the  Journal  des  Scavans 
is  ftill  more  honourable  to  the  authors  of  them.  They  give  in  it  an 
•excellent  abftraCt  of  the  work,  which  concludes  in  thefe  words. 
If  all poleuiici  works  were  written  in  the  jlyle  cf  this,  they  would  do 
more  honour  to  their  authors,  and  wotdd  be  better  received  if  the 
publich.  1  he  different  fubjetls  then  treated  by  our  Jews,  -in  their' 
letters,  are  coniidered,  and  new  llrengtli  is  giving  to  their  reafon- 
■ings,  by  theckarneis  and  prccifion  with  which  they  are  prefcnted. 
They  conclude,  faying,  We  could  wifh  to  lay  before  the  reader 
ihegreatcfl  part  of  ike  other  fuljecls  -johith  arc  treated  ly  cur  authors  y 
and  if)  fl^zw  iviih  what  energy,  foUdity  end  evidence,  they  bring  to  light 
ih^  errors,  miflalcs,  variations,  and  contradictions  of  their  adverfary. 
The  mifcellaneous  olfervations  at  the  end  of  the  worh,  are  announced  dr 
if  they  were  the  ahjiraBs  of  a  larger  commentary.  Do  the  authors  Jig' 
nify  by  this  their  indention  of  pubiifhing  more  ettlenjiue  trentifc?  In 
ihis  cafe  we  exhori  themjlill  to  keep  up  the  tone  of  politenefs  and  civility  , 
that  prevails  thro'  their  prefent  work,  which  is  ivritten  b  fides  in  an  in~ 
genious  and  intercfling  tnanner^  The  flandered  jfews  may  jujlly  re~ 
pel  an  injury,  to  tuhich  even  the  name  of  him  laho  isfaidto  have  giv- 
en  it  adds  weight.  It  is  'well  inoivn  heiv  contagious  the  failings, 
-errors,  and  mijlales  vf  great  men  are,  except  they  lofe  their  confequence 
hy  their  Jin gu  la  rity  or  tto  great  number.  This  lall  Ibroke  is  full  of 
energy,  it  fays  more  thsn  our  two  volumes. 

We  could  ftill  quote  a  great  number  of  other  periadical  wri- 
ters, both  French  and  otliers,  who  have  given  nearly  the  fanne  opi- 
*ion  of  &ur  authors  and  their  letters.  But  thefe  accounts,  altho' 
they  might  be  entertaining  and  nfeful,  would  become  tedious. 
We  fliall  Ijjg  the  reader's  permiffion  however,  to  add  to  them  the 
opinion  of  thofe  learned  Englillimen,  the  authors  of  the  Monthly 
Review.  The  letters  notu  before  us  ars  written  •with  much  more  dt- 
<:cncy,  poUtenefs  and  temper,  than  are  generally  to  be  met  wilJj  in  contrt' 
verjial  inritings.  They  likeivifejheii'  the  authors  to  be  men  of  learning 
candour  and  good  fenfe.  They  treat  J''ohaii  e  ii  ith  great  ref!>rn,  but 
Jioint  out  7Uimy  mijlakes^  iricr-tif,/lcnri.-s,  canfru^.^icus  und  rr.ifreprffi^*:- 


S  ADVERTISiMSNT. 

fattens  in  <whai  he  has  ad'Vdnced 'concerning  the  jewsy  and  the  teri- 
tings  ofihe  Old  Tejlamiul,  In  a  luord,  the  Heiretv  genilcinea  dcftnd 
themj'clves  with  great  abdity,  and  difciifs  fevural  points  relating  to  fa- 
(red  hyiory  iviih  much  erudition  andjudgment. 

Our  intention  in  mentioning  thofe  tellimonies,  fo  lionourable 
to  our  authors,  is  neither  to  recommend  their  work,  nor  to  flatter 
their  vanity.  Their  pride  is  raifed  by  no  encomiums,  but  by 
thofe  which  are  addreffed  to  their  politcnefs  and  moderation. 
They  look  upon  the  others  as  incitements  generoufly  given  to 
ftraugers,  who  endeavour  to  write  in  a  language  which  is  not  their 
own,  upon  intcrefting  fubjeiEts,  and  againlt  an  adverfary  fo  much 
fuperior  tothem,  and  for  every  teafon,  fo  formidable. 

We  do  not  intend  neither  by  thcfe  encomiums,  to  adminiftcr 
confolation  to  them  for  the  very  different  manner  in  which  Mr. 
d!C  Voltaire  has  fpoke  of  them.  In  the  opinion  of  this  learned 
and  deep  writer,  our  authors  are  ig'crattt^  hot-headed  blockheads. 
Thus  he  treats  them  in  his  highejl  tolemfion,  while  he  declares,  that 
as  he  may  have  been  niidaken  in  many  things,thro'  want  cf  time  or 
information,  lie  will  with  pleafure  retraft  thofe  errors  into  which 
he  may  have  fallen,  and  that  he  thanhs  thofe  who  will  point  tliem 
out  to  him,  even  although  their  zeal  fliould  favour  of  fharpnefs. 
Our  authors,  whofe  zeal  has  no  fharpnefs,  generoufly  forgi^vc 
Mr.  de  Voltaire  thofe  little  bitter  llrokes,  which  are  indeed  lefa 
violent  than  his  vehement  attacks  upon  fo  many  men  of  letters. 
They  well  know  how  impatiently  this  great  man  bears  conti-adiq- 
tion,  even  when  his  fiery  and  impetuous  imagination  hurries  him 
beyond  thofe  limits  which,  in  calmer  hours,  he  would  refpeft. 

But  it  was  proper  to  fhew  that  our  auihors  are  not  the  only  per- 
fons  wlio  perceive  want  of  juft  inference,  contradiftions,  errors, 
and  falfehoods  !n  the  writings  of  this  great  man,  and  that  inany 
others  fee  as  much  of  thefe  things  as  they  do,  and  fome  move.  It 
^as  proper  to  make  learned  foreigners  fenfible,  whom  we  have 
Jtnown  to  lament  over  the  whims  of  French  beaux-efprits,  that  the 
feduftion  of  philofophizing  has  not  yet  fo  far  fpread  over  the  na- 
tion, but  that  there  is  yet  a  confiderable  number  of  the  learned, 
\yho  deem  it  honourable  to  hold  different  opinions,  and  alfo  to  tell 
their  minds  freely.  And  notv^'ithfcanding  the  endeavours  of  certain 
writers,  to  raife  Mr.  de  Voltaire  to  the  rank  of  monarch  of  litera- 
ture, there  are  flill  fome  judges  who  dare  approve  thofe  writings 
which  rcpi'ovc  his  errors,  whilil  they  pay  a  proper  refpcd;  to  his 
talents. 

Let  us  fay  a  word  of  the  additions  made  to  this  new  edition* 
In  the  firft  place,  fix  new  letters  are  taken  up  in  defence  of  the  Ic- 
giflatioTi  of  Mofes.  It  is  obvious  that  this  fubjeft  alone  Vi-ould 
have  afforded  matter  for  a  more  cxtcnfive  work,  and  perhaps  fome 
of  our  authors  would  have  attempted  it.  But  they  are  informed 
that  the  celebrated  Mr.  Michaclis  is  preparing  to  publilh  \\hDroii 
Mojaique.  The  pubhck  will  certainly  find  in  the  work  of  fo  learn- 
ed a  man  the  jufleli  notions,  and  the  moil  extenfive  informajion 
with  regard  to  our  whole  le^ifiatioji. 


Advertisement.  ^ 

•  What  Mr.  de  Voltaire  fays  concerning  toleration  among  the 
Jews,  isdifcufTed  here  more  particularly.  We  fhew  that  the  fails 
he  quotes  from  eur  hiftory  are  either  foreign  to  the  quedion,  or 
falfely  reprtfented,  or  that  they  happened  in  times  of  anarchy, 
captivity,  general  corruption,  &c.  That  moft  of  the  inftances  he 
produces,  prove  nothing,  or  make  againft  himfelf.  That  the 
Jewifh  legidation  was  of  necefllty  intolerant,  but  not  the  only  in- 
tolerant one,  and  that  this  feverity  was  better  condudled  amongd 
them,  than  amongft  other  nations.  On  this  occafion  many  inftan- 
ces of  want  of  toleration  among  the  ancients  are  produced,  efpe- 
cially  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  More  examples  yet  might 
have  been  quoted,  efpccially  in  reafoning  againft  Mr.  de  Voltaire, 
for  example,  Abraham  perfecuted  for  the  fake  of  religion  by  Nem- 
brod  ;  Zoroaltcr  waging  war  againft  the  king  ofTouran,  In  order 
to  make  him  conform  to  the  worfhip  of  fire  ;  the  oath  which  every 
citizen  of  Athens  took  to  defend  his  religion,  and  to  conform  to 
it  without  referve  ;  hfchihis  condemned  and  led  to  execution,  for 
having  fpokcn  ill  of  the  Gods  ;  the  Epicurean  philofophers  banifli- 
ed  from  two  cities,  bccaufe  they  corrupted  the  morals  of  the  citi- 
zens by  their  maxims  and  examples  ;  the  works  of  Cremutius  Cor- 
dus  burned  by  order  of  the  fenate,  which  laft  fa6l,  added  to  the 
others  that  our  authors  have  produced,  proves  inconteftably  the 
falfehood  of  Mr.  de  Voltaire's  alTertion,  that  there  is  no  injlance  in 
hijlory  of  a  pJ/ilofepher's  hwvltig  cppofed  the  luill  cf  the  prince  and  of 
the goiiernvient.  The  author's  are  lenfible  that  many  inftances  of 
toleration  maybe  produced  againft  them,  but  they  know  that  it  is 
cafy  to  anfwer  them,  efpecially  in  oppoiition  to  Mr.  de  Voltaire, 
ana  they  cannot  conceive  that  fo  great  a  writer,  defending  fo  fa- 
vourite a  caufe,  could  ftake  his  credit  on  fuch  weak  argaments, 
whilft  much  better  ones  were  at  hand. 

Thefhort  Commentary  contains  many  new  extrafts.  Some  of 
them  relate  to  Abraham,  and  to  the  origin  of  circumcifion. 
Owr  authors  had  omitted  in  the  former  edition  to  avoid  repetiti- 
on, and  becaufe  the  two  learned  Chrlftians,  above  fpoken  of,  had 
treated  this  fubjed.  But  as  it  was  reprefented  to  them,  that 
thcfe  fubjefts  were  particularly  interefting  tc  the  Jewifti  nation, 
whofc  members  feldom  read  Chriftian  books,  they  thought  proper 
to  publish  thcfe  cxtrafts,  after  revifnig  and  enlarging  them. 
Where  they  have  gleaned  after  the  two  learned  Chrillians,  they 
have  thought  it  theit  duty  to  confefsit  and  to  give  honour  where 
honour  was  due. 

The  whole  work  conchides  by  the  examination  of  an  article  ta. 
ken  out  of  the  ^njlions  fur  I'  Encyclopeclie,  in  which  Mr.  dc 
Volt<^ire  returns  again  to  the  ftory  of  the  golden  calf,  and  ftrivea 
to  make  defence  by  the  art  of  chymiftry,  and  that  of  caftin^ 
metals.  If  he  finds  the  tone  of  our  authors  a  little  more  animated 
in  the  reply,  he  muft  excufc  it.  He  fiift  taught  them  this  tone. 
However,  he  may  fee  in  the  laft  pages,  that  tho'  our  authors  arc 
under  the  ncctiTity  of  c:ilicifine,  thtv  liave  tafte  er.ough  to  frivc 

ue  praiJe. 


't*' 


EPISTLE 


DEDICATORY, 


o  R 


LETTER 


From  the  EDITORS   to 


Mr.    D  E    VOLTAIRE. 


S  I  R, 


A 


.T  length  the  wifli^  of  the  public  and  our  own 
are  foon  to  be  gratified  !  You  are  giving  a  new  edi- 
tion of  your  works.  As  it  is  to  be  publifhed  under 
your  own  eyes  and  with  your  own  corredlions,  it  will 
be  authentic  and  complete.  All  the  real  productions 
of  the  greateft  genius  of  this  age  will  be  found  there 
colieded,  and  it  will  be  eafy  hereafter  to  diftinguifli 
them  from  that  heap  of  fpurious  produdions  which 
s^  impudently  afcribed  to  you,  thofe  unhappy  births; 


EPISTLE  ,, 

laid  to  your  charge  by  envy,  or  condemned  by  their 
own  parent,   as  unworthy  of  bearing  his  name ! 

You  are  raifmg  a  lading  monument  to  your  own 
glory  and  for  the  inftrudion  of  poflerity  :  You  will 
not  leave  any  thing  in  it  that  may  tarniih  the  former, 
or  millead  the  latter  :  Therefore  you  are  ftill  reviewing 
thofe  immortal  works  and  probably  now  putting  the 
lad  hand  to  them  ! 

Could  we  wifh  for  a  more  favourable  opportunity  of 
prefenting  you  this  collection  which  we  have  made 
up  out  of  fome  trails  that  concern  us  ?  Thefe  are 
Letters^  Refledions,  a  Comment,  ^c.  of  fome  of 
our  brethren,  Portugueze  and  Germans,  on  vari- 
ous parts  of  your  writings  :  Be  pleafed,  fir,  to  re- 
ceive and  perufe  them.  As  you  are  now  employed 
in  your  new  edition,  which  is  announced,  it  may 
be  profitable  and  pleafmg  to  you  to  read  over  thofe 
flieets.  For  altho'  the  miftakes  and  errors^  the  con- 
tradi£lioos,  and  bad  reafoning,  the  falfehoods  and 
fcandalous  imputations  in  your  remarks  on  the 
hiftory  of  the  Jews  and  their  facred  writings,  are 
pointed  out,  yet  the  praifes  given  far  outv/eigh  the 
deferved  cenfures. 

Thefe  jews  are  not  bold  aggreflbrs,  w^ho  brave 
your  refentment,  and  wantonly  attack  you  .-  They 
"«^e  members  of  a  nation  which  you  have  often  autra- 
geoufly  abufed,  and  which  you  ceafe  not  to  perfecute 
with  an  animofity  unaccountable:  (i)  They  con- 
fine themfelves  to  a  reply  which  you  have  rendered 
neceflary  :  They  repel  your  darts,  but  they  revere 
the  hand  which  throws  them  :  They  are  paffionate 
lovers  of  your  works,  and  could  wifh  to  find  In  ever3r 
part  of  them  that  exadnefs  and  high  perfedioii 
which  you  are  able  to  give  them,  and  they  think  you 
may  be  obliged  to  them  for  pointing  out  to  you  thofe 
parts   which  feem  to  fall  fliort  of  this  Charadler. 

In  this  fpirit  they  have  wrote  thefe  obfervations, 

( 1 )  And  ytt  it  feems  eafy  to  account  for  it !    Cbrlfi, 


i«  DEDICATORY. 

and  with  thefe  motives  only,  we  have  coIIesSted  them 
and  prefented  them  to  you. 

We  femain  with  the  higheft  efleem  and  venera- 
tion, 

Sir, 

Your  moll  obedient  humble  fervants, 
Joseph  Lopez, 
Parts y  the—    .  Isaac  Montenero, 

Benjamin  Groot, 
Jews   in  the  environs  of  Utrecht. 

P.  S.  We  could  not  obtain  a  permiflion  to  pubh'fh 
this  colle6:ion,  but  upon  condition  of  admitting  a 
Chriftian  to  make  fuch  notes  as  he  thought  fit  on  it. 
We  confented  to  this,  without  adopting  or  anfwer- 
ing  for  thefe  notes.  We  fhall  carefully  diftinguifh 
our  notes  and  thofe  of  our  authors  from  the  Chri- 
ftian* s,  by  thefe  abreviations,  Chriji.  Jia.  Edit. 


LETTERS 

OF     CERTAIN 

P  O  R  T  U  G  U  E  Z  E     JEWS, 

WITH 

CRITICAL  REFLEXIONS  on  the  ift  Chapter  of 
the  7th  Volume  (1)  of  the  Works  of  Mr.  de  Vol- 
taire, with  refpea  to  the  Jews. 

LETTER     I. 

From  Mr.  Guasco  to  Mr.  Sweetmind. 
The  Occafictt  and  Subject  of  the  following  Letters. 


Y 


j^  OU  defire  to  know  fir,  what  has  given  birth 
to  the  following  letters  and  reflections  ;  It  is  pro- 
per to  fatisfy  you. 

Worldly  intereft  often  divides  thofe  whom  the  ties 
of  blood,  religion,  and  common  misfortunes  fhould 
unite.  About  eight  or  ten  years  ago  a  difpute  arofe 
between  the  Portugueze  Jews  of  Bourdeaux,  and 
fome  of  their  brethren  of  other  nations.  Thefe  lad 
pretending  to  form  but  one"  body  with  the  others, 
claimed  upon  that  account  thofe  privileges  which 
the  firft  had  enjoyed  in  this  city  for  more  than  two 
centuries. 

fi)  1th  Fel.  It  istheith  of  the  (ditio.i  of  Gsneva,  ia  1756.  Edit. 

C 


14 


Letters     of 


In  thefe  circumflances  the  Portugueze  Jews  ap- 
plied to  the  author  (i),  and  requefted  he  would  join 
his  good  offices  to  thofe  of  their  (2)  agent  at  Paris  : 
He  ferved  them  with  affedion ;  and  wrote  to  the 
Marfhal  Due  d'R.  from  whom  he  received  an  an- 
fwer  as  flattering  to  himfelf  as  it  was  fatisfadory  to 
the  Portugueze  nation  (3). 

This  was  not  the  only  obligation  the  Portugueze 
had  to  the  author.  This  difpute  gave  occafion  to 
refieft  on  the  difadvantageous  and  cruel  prejudices 
which  are  entertained  a^ainfl  the  lewiih  nation  in 
j:;eneral,  and  on  the  common  want  of  information 
in  France  concerning  this  point,  that  a  diftin^ticn 
ihould  be  made  between  the  Jews  of  Spain  and  Por- 
tuo-al,  and  thofe  of  other  nations.  It  was  therefore 
thought  neceuary  to  write  a  ftiort  apology  for  the 
jews  in  general,  and  to  fliow  the  difference  between 
thefe  two  bodies  of  men.  This  tafk  M'as  given  to 
the  author,   and  he    undertook  it. 

Mr.  de  Voltaire's  chapter  againft  the  Jews  feemed 
to  be  the  ftroneeft  thin^;  to  their  difadvantao^e.  The 
weight  of  authority  which  this  illuftrious  writer 
crives  to  his  prejudices,  was  aimoft  fufficient  to  (4) 
crufh  this  people  entirely,  by  fupplying  calumny, 
in  courfe  of  time,  with  weapons.  As  we  are  per- 
fuadcd  that  this  never  was  nor  could  be  his  intention, 
and  that  he  would  even  rejoice  to  fee  thofe  evils  pre- 
vented which  he  had  not  forefeen  or  attended  to,  our 
r.athor  has  refolved  to  combat  thefe  imputations. 
You  are  fenfible  with  how  much  circumfpection  he 
has  done  it,  and  with  whatfuccefs. 

(t)  The  author  of  R/JIlR'.ovs  CrHtqufs.  is  Mr.  P'mio,  a  Portngneze  Ji'w, 
much  eftccm-jd  for  his  politcnefs.  and  genius.  He  has  wrote  an  Effay  on 
l,ux«ry,  pnblifhjd  at  Yvertoii  in  1764-      1.V//. 

vi)  This  agent  is  Mr.  Pereirc^  v/eli  known  for  the  art  01  teaching  pcr- 
f'>n<!  to  fpi-'ik,  who  were  deaf  from  their  birth       Etilt- 

(3)  Under  thi«  common  name  are  included  the  Portusrueze  and  Spanifii 
J'.'ws.  They  are  frtfled  in  France  fince  the  Year  i.^'^o,  and  enjoy  the  fame 
privileges  as  the  King's  other  fubjeils  by  virtue  of  Letters  Patent,  which 
havi-  lacen   renewed   every  Rei}(n.     Aut- 

(4^  A  e  they  ll-rioiis  in  their  fears  that  the  writingrs  of  Mr.  de  Voltaire 
will  crvi'h  ths  J-wiHi  n\ti(>n  entirrly  ?  Could  empty  dcclama'ion  accomplifil 
tnat  which  fo  many  ages  of  opprelFion  never  could  cffcd  ?      Edit. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  15 

This,  Sir,  was  the  occafion  and  the  fubjeQ:  of  thofe 
letters,  Sec.  which  you  vvifli  to  read  over  again. 
Thefe  prehminary  informations  will  be  ufcful,  as  you 
think,  in  calling  Hght  on  the  Reflexions  Critiques^ 
It  will  be  eafier  underftood  why,  in  an  apology  for  the 
Jewifh  nation,  the  Portugueze  and  Spaniih  Jews  are 
fo  much  exalted  above  thofc  of  Germany  and  Poland. 

We  heartily  wifli  that  every  Chriftian  would  read 
this  work  with  thofe  fentiments  of  moderation  and 
impartiality  which  you  poflefs.  They  may  then  per- 
haps adopt  lefs  unfavourable  notions  of  the  Jews  ;  or 
if  they  condemn  us,  they  will  do  it  without  hating  us. 
Let  pretended  philofophers  go  on  harangueing,  let 
them  infult  and  calumniate  an  unhappy  people  under 
the  marks  of  benevolence  and  toleration,  but  a  Chrif- 
tian fhould  know  neither  palTion  nor  hatred. 


We  remain  refpeclfully,  S:c. 


l5  LETTERS       OF 

(i)  L  E  T  T  E  R     II. 

From  the  Author  of  the  Critical  Rejieclions  to  Mr.  Pe- 
REiRE,  J  gent  to  the  Poi-tugueze  nation  at  Bour- 
deauXy  when  hefent  him  thefe  ReJIexions, 


SIR, 


T. 


HE  letter  which  I  wrote  Dy  your  u^'eftlons  to 
Marfhal  R.  in  favour  of  the  Portugueze  nation  efta- 
bhilied  at  Bourdeaux,  has  procured  me  from  you.fuch 
thanks  and  encomiums  as  I  fliould  fcarcely  have  de- 
ferved,  if  I  had  acquitted  myfelfof  every  thing  which 
you  and  that  nation  could  juflly  expeQ;  from  my  zeal 
tor  their  interefts.  Thefe  interefts  fhould  be  dear  to 
me  for  more  reafons  than  one,  firfl:  on  account  of  our 
common  defcent,  our  anceftors  having  lived  for  many 
centuries  in  Spain  and  Portugal,  than  on  account  of 
thofe  feelings  which  tie  us  to  our  ancient  country,  and 
to  that  ancient  religion  (2),  the  parent  of  all  others, 
•which  is  moil  univerfally  and  unjuflly  vilified  by  thofe 
who  ought  to  treat  it  with  refpedl  and  veneration. 
The  fignal  fervices  v;hich  I  have  been  fo  happy  as  to 
do  to  the  Portugueze  nation  fettled  at  Amflerdam,  of 
which  I  hope  they  will  long  reap  the  advantages,  are 
but  an  additional  incitement  urging  mc  to  give  to  my 
brethren  in  other  places  thofe  proofs  of  good  will 
which  they  have  a  right  to  expeft  from  me  :  But  I  am 
forry  that  you  have  employed  me  on  tv/o  occafions,  in 
which  the  intevells  of  the  Portugueze  nation  clafli,  as 
it  were,  with  thofe  of  the  Jews  of  other  nations  :  I  am 
fenfibly  affected  by  this,  and  I  perceive  the  fame  feel- 
inos  in  you,  althou?^h  reafon  and  found  policvautho- 
rize  your  condu^ft.     Caligula  wifhed  that  the  Roman 

(i)  This  letter  an  J  t'le  follo\A'inf  reflexions  were  printed  at  Amflerdam  in 
1702.     E.-f.-t. 

(2)  Thofe  ChiiiUans  who  look  upon  the  prefcnt  Jewidi  worfliiji  as  fuper- 
ftifioiio  and  vun,  yet  fincersly  rel"pc<fl  tlie  ancient  Jcwifh  religion,  the  parent 
oftheir's:  None  among  tl'-.cnx  delpife  it  except  AtlieilUaiid  Deifts.      ChrijH 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  \J 

people  hnd  but  one  head,  that  he  might  have  the  bar- 
barous pleafure  of  cutting  it  off  at  one  (Iroke  :  Why 
did  he  not  convert  the  vvifn,  in  order  that  the  happi- 
nefs  of  one  individual  might  become  that  of  the  com- 
munity !  This,  if  it  was  poffible,  v/ould  be  our  wiih. 
The  happinefs  we  acquire  at  the  expence  of  others  is 
but  a  gilded  misfortune  :  It  is  a  poifon  which  can 
cure  none  exc  :pt  the  fick  ;  but  unfortunately  in  poli- 
ticks, as  well  as  in  phyfick,  we  are  often  obliged  to 
apply  to  empiricks.  Since  men  have  been  divided 
into  many  diflinct  communities,  it  feems  to  be  a  pecu- 
liar misfortune  that  the  interefts  of  thefe  feveral  focie- 
tiss  mud  neceiTarily  claili.  It  is  therefore  incumibent 
on  us  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  the  Portugueze,  al- 
though this  fhould  be  prejudicial  to  the  Germans,  or 
the  Jews  of  Avignon,  at  the  fame  time  you  and  I  v/ifli 
by  the  mofl:  important  fervices,to  make  thefe  latter  for- 
get thofe  Uttle  heart-burnings  which  the  lawful  and 
neceifary  defence  of  the  privileges  of  the  PortUG:ueze; 
may  have  compelled  us  to  give  them,  whilft  we  were 
{hewing  the    diitindliion  between  them  and  u^. 

I  fend  you,  fir,  my  RefleBions  on  what  Mr.  de  Vol- 
taire has  wrote  againfl  the  Jews.  You  will  find  fome 
among  them  which  would  require  to  be  placed  in  a 
fuller  light.  But  as  it  is  not  my  intention  to  attack 
Mr.  de  Voltaire,  I  think  it  fufficient  to  prefent  that 
illuflrious  writer  fome  new  materials,  which  no  man 
can  make  a  better  ufe  of  than  himfelf,  and  which  his 
love  of  truth  will,  I  doubt  not,  induce  him  to  ufe 
in  his  nev^r  (i)  edition.  You  know,  fir,  that  I  a:n 
his  greateft  admirer  :  I  could  not  (2)  forgive  myfelf 
if  there  was  any  man  in  Europe  who  had  read  and 
ftudied  his  works  oftener  than  myfelf;  I  look  u'oon 
them  as  an  univerfal   (3)  library  :   And   I  this  dav 

(i)  'TUs  -rrv  eiitlen  is  preparing.  A'lr.  de  Voltaire  has  now  a  fine  oppor- 
tunity of  fulfilling  his  eiigagenicnts,  and  oi  Jhe-wmg  his  ,,:^a>J fur  that  truth 
ivhicb  Ij!  love  f .      Edit. 

(2)  Fvrgi-ve  myf.lf.  How  can  Air.  de  Vo'tairft  hear  a  mortal  hatred  fo  a 
people  amonjr  whom  he  has  fjch  zea  oiis  Friends  ?      Cbr':/}. 

(3)  Uiifjof A  Library  V/e  know  not  whether  thii  en.romiuni  is  properly 
applied  to  Mr.  dc  Voltaire  :  until  now  it  has  not  been  jjivcn  to  any  ni;in 
to  Ipeak  of  every  thiojr,  and  at  the  fjme  time  to  fpeak  well  of  every  thin?,  : 
the  powers  of  the  underflar.dinjr  have  th -ir  bounvU,  and  hcyond  them  it  al- 
ways lafes  iu  dcptii    what  it  gains  ill  I'lirface,     t'dit. 


rS  Lettersof 

render  him  that  complete  juftification  among  my 
countrymen  which  poflerity  will  one  day  render  him. 
(i)  Odere  incolumem, poft^enitis  carum  !  His  intention 
cannot  be  to  give  a  free  courfe  to  calumny  :  No  ! 
he  will  fell  that  monfter  to  the  ground  as  loon  as  he 
difcovers  him.  I  am  perfuaded  that  my  Refisdions, 
if  he  deigns  to  read  them,  will  not  be  dii'pleafing  to 
him,  and  that,  far  from  making  him  my  enemy,  they 
will  procure  me  his  efteem.  You  are  fenfible  of  the 
refpecl  I  bear  you,  and  with  what  regard,  I  am,  &c. 

(i)  OJere  incolumem.  Wc  know  not  whether  Mr.dcVoltairc  has  enemies,  but 
we  feel  in  ourfelves  that  he  may  be  confuted  without  hatred  and  even  with 

admiration. 'Poflerity    will   furely   value  one    part  of  his    works  very 

highly,  and  we  fincergly  wifli  that  they  may  not  have  any  reproaches  to  caft 
en  the  other.      Edit. 


C    E.    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  I  9 

(0  CRITICAL    REFLEXIONS. 

On   the    iji  Chapter   of   the    yth   Vohwie   cf  Mr.  de 
Voltaire's  Works, 


o 


F  all  vices  the  mofl  hurtful  to  fociety,  of  ?.!l 
wrongs  the  moft  irreparr.ble,  of  all  crimes  the  black- 
eft,  is  certainly  calumny.  The  detriment  which 
they  fuffer  who  are  the  objeds  and  the  viftims  of  it, 
is  of  infinite  extent  :  this  is  an  inconteflible  truth, 
and  Mr.  de  Voltaire  has  placed  it  in  its  flrongeft 
point  of  view  in  many  parts  of  his  works.  It  is  alfo 
true  that  the  more  ATelghty  an  accufation  is,  the 
more  clear  ought  to  be  the  proofs  of  it.  Thefe  prin- 
ciples adm.it  no  exception,  even  when  the  meaneft  in- 
dividual of  fociety  is  to  be  arraigned  :  therefore  cau- 
tion is  ftill  more  neceflary  when  a  whole  nation  is  at- 
tacked :  and  the  more  extent  is  given  to  an  accufa- 
tion of  crimes,  the  better  grounded  fliould  be  the 
proofs.  • 

But  are  there  any  imputations  which  can  be  laid  on  a 
people  in  general  ?  Can  a  whole  nation  be  accefiary  to 
a  crime  ?  Can  the  murder  of  Charles  the  firfi:  be  with 
juftice  imputed  to  the  whole  Englifh  nation  .?  Or 
the  maifacre  of  St.  Bartholemew  to  the  French  in  the 
reign  of  Charles  IX.?  Every  univerfal  propofition  i^ 
fufpicious  and  liable  to  error,  more  efpeclally  when 
we  fpeak  of  the  general  charad'cer  of  a  nation,  the 
fnades  of  which  are  always  m.uch  diverfified,  acord- 
ing  to  the  ftation,  rank,  temper,  and  profeffion  cf 
every  individual.  Each  province  of  an  empire  is  as 
different  from  the  next,  as  either  of  thefe  differ  from 
the  capital,  and  the  capital  from  the  court,  where 
alfo  each  family  has  a  particular  tint  by  which  the 
individuals  of  it  arc  divided  into  various  characters. 
If  in  a  wood  there  are  not  two  leaves  which  bear  a 
flrift  refemblance,in  the  world  there  are  not  two  faces 
perfectly  alike,  nor  two  men  exadly  of  the  fame  way  of 

(l)  V.'e  I.ave  taVer  the  lil.erty  to  retrenrli  foirie  part'  of  thefe  rencxidiv 
v.Iiicli  appear  unnecefTiiry  :  But  wc  fiiall  bt  careful  to  jircfirve  all  the  en- 
coraiutns  which  arc  given  to  Mr.  de  Voltaire.     Edit. 


20  LETTERSOF 

thinking  on  every  fubjeft,  how  is  it  poffible  to  give  the 
moral  piclure  of  a  nation  with  one  dafli  of  thepen?  Ihc 
nioraHty  of  a  nation  may  be  compared  to  that  of  indivi- 
duals, of  which  it  is  the  aggregate  :  nature  varies  in 
the  individual  according  to  phyfical  accidents,  which 
alter  his  temperament :  there  is  a  fimilar  variation  in 
nations,  according  as  political  accidents  change  their 
conflitution  :  nations  have  their  clear-objcure  :  they 
have  their  bright  hours  in  which  their  virtues  fhine 
forth  ;  they  have  alfo  others  in  which  their  virtues 
are  obfcured  :  but  nations  never  are  perfectly  virtu- 
ous or  vicious  :  and  befides,  they  never  are  for  a  long 
time    (lationary  :    inconftancy   is  the  lot  of  humanity. 

If  this  be  true  with  regard  to  nations  in  general, 
it  is  much  more  fo  with  refped  to  the  Jews  in  particu- 
lar. They  have  been  fcattered  thro'  fo  many  nati- 
ons, that  they  have,  we  may  fay,  adopted  in  each 
country,  after  a  certain  time,  the  charafters  of  the 
inhabitants  :  a  Jew  in  London  bears  as  little  refem- 
blance  to  a  Jew  at  Conftantinople,  as  this  laft  refem- 
bles  a  Chinefe  Mandarine  !  a  Portugueze  Jew  of 
Bourdeaux,  and  a  German  Jew  of  Metz  appear  two 
beings  of  a  different  nature  !  It  is  therefore  impoili- 
ble  to  fpeak  of  the  manners  of  the  Jews  in  general 
without  entering  into  a  very  long  detail,  and  into 
particular  diftinftions  :  the  Jew  is  a  Camelion  that 
aiTumes  all  the  colours  of  the  different  climates  he 
inhabits,  of  the  different  people  he  frequents,  and  of 
the  different  governments  under  which  he  lives. 

Notwithflanding  this,  Mr.  de  Voltaire  has  melted 
them  all  down  to  the  fame  fubflance,  and  has  given 
us  a  locking  picture  of  them  which  bears  no  refem- 
blance. 

^he  Chriftian  and  Mahometan  religion,  he  fays  firfl:, 
look  up  to  the  yewijh,  as  their  parent,  and  by  a  very 
extraordinary  (i). contradiction  they  have  for  this  parent 

(x)By  a  "very  cxfraordinary  contradidion.  The  ancient  Jewifll  religioa 
was  holy  and  venerable,  it  was  the  worihip  which  God  himlcif  had  ordered, 
but  this  WOTlliip,  according  to  the  divine  oracles,  was  to  be  abrogated,  its 
facrificcsabolifhcd,  audits  niinifters  caft  out — The  prefcnt  Jewifh  Religi- 
on is,  in  th«  opinion  of  Chriftians  and  Turks,  this  wordiip  condemned. 
Vx  hire  Is  tbe  contradiitioD  in  their  rejediing  the  one,  and  paying  due  refp  eel 
to  the  otlicr  ? 


CERTAIN         JeV/S.  21 

both  refpeSl  and  horror.  He  might  have  added  what 
Mr.  de  Montefquieu  fays  fomewhere,  Jhe  is  a  mother 
who  has  brought  two  daughters  into  the  ivorld  that  have 
loaded  her  with  Jiripes. 

But  why  does  Mr.  Voltaire,  who  was  born  to 
enlighten  the  world,  add  to  that  cloud  of  popular 
prejudices  which  have  been  heaped  upon  the  profef- 
ibrs  of  this  religion  to  the  fcandal  of  humanity  ?  how 
could  this  great  man  in  defpite  of  his  underilanding 
and  his  heart,  in  contempt  of  reafon  and  truth,  fall 
into  fuch  an  abfence  of  mind  ?  For  what  more  gentle 
term  can  I  ufe,  when  I  fee  the  enemy  oi  prejudices 
yielding  up  his  pen  to  the  blinded  profellion,  that 
common  tool  of  calumny,  a  monfter  which  he  has  fo 
often  felled  to  the  ground  !  We  cannot  refrain  from 
/the  ufe  of  this  term,  efpecially  when  we  fee  him  con- 
clude this  chapter  by  fuch  horrid  exprelTions.  In  J}:)ort 
you  ivillfind  nothing  amongji  them  (that  is  the  Jews)  bid 
an  ignorant  and  barbarous  people,  who  have  joined,  for 
a  long  time,  the  bafcjl  avarice  to  the  mojl  detejiablefuper- 
Jlition,  and  the  moji  violent  hatred  for  all  thofe  fiations, 
which  tolerate  and  enrich  them  :  we  mufi  not  however 
(he  fays  in  his  tender  mercy)  we  mufi  not  burn  them  I 
I  fhall  fay  modeftly  to  Mr.  Voltaire  that  many 
of  thofe  whom  he  treats  fo  cruelly,  would  rather  fuf- 
fer  the  pains  of  fire  than  tomeritthefe  undeferved  im- 
putations :  It  would  perhaps  be  eafy  to  fhew  that  the 
Jews  are  not  more  ignorant,  barbarous  or  fuperfliti- 
ous  than  other  nations,  and  that  the  rich  among  them 
are  more  inclined  to  profufenefs  than  to  avarice,  which 
is  not  the  cafe  among  other  people  :  But  no  other 
proof  is  neceilary  than  all  appeal  to  the  public,  to  be 
informed  that  the  Jews  adopt  fo  ftrongly  the  patriot 
fpirit  of  the  nations  among  which  they  live,  that  they 
pufh  it  farther  even  than  the  natives  themfelvcs  ;  The 
Jew^s  are  jealous  to  an  excefs  of  the  glory  of  thofe  na- 

D 

There  is  more  wit  tlian  tnith  in  the  faying  of  Mr.deMortcfquieu  :  T'lc  Ig- 
norant and  fclfifli  faBaticifm  of  fome  Chriflians  has  perhaps  loaded  the  Jcwifh 
nation  with  many  flripes  :  But  the  fanaticifni  of  fome  Chriftiansis  not  the 
Chrlfiian  Religion:  True  Chriftianity  favours  neither  of  cruelty  nor  inlm- 
nianity.  The  Mahometan  Religion  announced  itfeli  with  fire  and  fword  in 
hand  !  The  Religion  of  chriftians  has  no  weapons  but  perfuafioii  ami  bene- 
volence, dilintcreftedncfs  and  patience-     Glril], 


*2  LETTERSOF 

tlons  xAio  receive  them  and  which  they  (i)  enrich  : 
If  Mi.  Voltaire  will  allow  himfelf  a  little  time  to 
review  the  fubjecr,  (for  to  his  ov/n  tribunal  I  appeal) 
he  v/ill  fee  theneceffity  of  making  reparation  for  what 
he  has  faid  of  the  Jewifn  nation,  to  truth,  to  the  age 
he  lives  in,  but  above  all  to  pofterity,  who  may  plead 
his  (i)  authority  for  oppreffing  and  deflroying  a  peo- 
ple already  groaning  under  too  many  calamities. 

If  Mr.  Voltaire  had  afted  according  to  that  prin- 
ciple of  found  reafon,  which  he  affeds  to  do,  he  would 
have  begun  by  diflinguifiiing  from  the  other  Jews 
the  Spanifli  and  the  Portugueze,  who  never  have  been 
mixed  or  incorporated  with  the  crovvd  of  the  other 
fons  of  Jacob  :  He  would  have  made  this  great  di- 
flinciion  evident  :  I  am  fenfible  that  it  is  little  known 
in  France,  and  that  the  want  of  proper  information  on 
this  head  has  been  detrimental  on  many  occafions,  to 
the  Portugueze  nation  of  Bourdeaux.  Mr.  Vol- 
taire cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fcrupulous  exaftnefs 
of  the  Portugueze  and  Spanifh  Jews  not  to  intermix 
in  marriage,  alliance,  or  any  other  way  with  the  Jews 
of  other  nations  :  He  has  been  in  Holland,  and  knows 
that  they  have  feparate  fynagogues,  and  that  altho* 
they  profefs  the  fame  religion  and  the  fame  articles  of 
faith,  vet  their  ceremonies  have  often  no  refemblance  : 
The  manners  of  the  Portugueze  Jews  are  alfo  very  dif- 
ferent from  thofc  of  the  reft  :  The  former  have  no 
beards  nor  any  thing  peculiar  in  their  drefs.  The  rich 
among  them  vie  with  the  other  nations  of  Europe  in 
refinement,  elegance  and  fliow  :  and  diner  from  them 
in  worfiiip  only.  Their  variance  with  their  other 
brethren  is  at  fuch  a  hciijht,  that  if  a  Portugueze  Tew 
in  England  or  Holland  married  a  German  Jewefs,  he 
would  of  courfe  lofe  all  his  prerogatives,  be  no  long- 
er reckoned  a  member  of  their  fynagogue,  forfeit  all 
civil  and  ecclefiaftical  preferments,    be  abfolutely  di- 

(  1/  Thfy  eni'ich.  I?  wcul'l  bn  a  point  not  unworthy  the  attention  of 
f'Uofe  who  are  vcrfed  in  politicks,  to  enquire  whcriicr  tlic  Jews  enrich  thofe 
foUiitries  that  afln.it  tlieni,  or  whctlier  thty  only  enrich  themfilves,  or  wiie- 
thcrihty  do  h<;th  tkcfe  thihj:s  at  the  fame  time,  which  is  our  opinion.    Cbrif.. 

{z)  I'Und hh  A:ii'jiirlty.  Mr.  Voltaire  \s-i)uM  ct.rt;iinly  have  difowned 
the!'.'  impiitattiiins  had  he  forcfetn  fnch  corftqucnc-is  from  them  :  However, 
wf,  do  not  think  tJist  the  Jcwifh  natitin  has  much  to  fear  from  tncra  .• 
'ike  public    wiil  know  Lgw  to  j^at  a  juft  value  on  theni.     Edit. 


CERTAIN     Tews.  o  ? 

vorced  from  the  (i)  body  of  the  nation,  and  not  even 
buried  with  his  Portugueze  brethren  :  They  think  in 
general  that  they  are  defcended  from  the  tribe  of  Juda, 
aiKi  they  hold  that  the  chief  families  of  it  were  fent 
into  Spain  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonifli  captivity  : 
This  is  the  caufe  of  thofe  diftindions  and  of  tiiat  ele- 
vation of  mind  which  is  obferved  among  them,  and 
which  even  their  brethren  of  other  nations  feem  to 
(2)  acknowledge. 

By  this  Vv'ife  policy  they  have  preferved  purer  mo- 
rals,  and  have  acquired  a   certain  importance  which 
helps   even  Chrifrians  to   diifinguifli  them  from  the 
other  Jews.     They  do  not  then  deferve  thofe  epithets 
which  Mr.  Voltaire    laviflies  on  them  :    The  jews  of 
Holland  brought  thither  great  riches  at  the  end  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  with  manners  irreproacha- 
ble greatly  improved  the  trade  of  that  commonwealth. 
Their  Synagogue  was  like  an  alfembly  of  fenators, 
and  when  German  noblemen  went  into  it,  they  could 
not  be  perfuaded  that  thofe  there  prefent  were  of  the 
fame  nation   with   thofe  of  Germany.    They    have 
been  of  greater  ufe  to  Holland,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fevenceenth  century,  than  the  French  refugees  w^re 
at  the  end  of  it  :   Thefe    latter,  after  the  repeal  of  the 
edid  of  Nantz,  brou^_;;ht  into  Holland   much  indu- 
fcry  and  nttlc(3)    wealth;   the    Portugueze,    befides 
much  wealth,    drew  into  Holland  the  trade  of  Spain, 
and  excited  the  induftry  of  all  the  refr  (4)  :   their  de- 
fcendants  have  been  rather  dupe:-;  than  knaves  :   They 
have  often  been  the  prey  of  ufurers,  rarely,  if  ever, 
ufurers   themfelves.     Scarcely    can  one  inlfance    be 
given  of  a   Portugueze  Jew   executed  at  Amfterdani 
or  the  Hague,  during  two  centuries  :  It  would  be  hard 

(It    The  Body  of  the    naf.on.      What  a  fchjfm  !    Cl.rlfi. 

(a)  Seem  te  acii!o-7v!ah:;e.  Tlie  truth  of  the  author's  aflcrtion  is  evitlert, 
tnat  his   apology  for  the  Jeivs  in  general  ii  a   pangyrickef  the   roitugueze   nation. 

(3)  Little  licalth.  This  fad  is  undoubted,  altho'  it  claflies  with  the  no- 
tions Mr.  Voltaire  has  formed  to  himfeif,  of  the  immenfe  funis  r.f  gold 
ami  filver  which  the  Proceflaiits  carried  witl>  them  out  of  Frn.ncc.     F.dit. 

(4)  In:h:Jlry  of  all  the  reH .  'J'o  be  convinced  of  tlie  influence  of  the  Jews 
on  trade,  let  any  man  go  to  the  exchange  at  Amflerdam,  and  he  will  fee  tha 
greatetl  hurry  ©f  bulinefs  on  every  day  of  the  week,  except  Saturday:  On 
this,  the  Jewifh  Sabbath  there  appears  a  vifible  flaunation,  which  can  be  im- 
puted to  no  other  caufe  but  to  the  abfence  of  the  Jews.     'Iranjlator. 


24  Lettersof 

to  find  in  the  annals  of  mankind,  fo  numerous  a  body 
of  people  as  that  or  the  Portugueze  and  Spanifh  jews 
fettled  in  Holland  and  England,  among  whom  fo 
few  crimes  punilhable  by  law  have  been  committed  ; 
and  to  this  I  call  to  witnefs  all  well-informed  Chrifti- 
ans  of  thofe  nations.  The  vices  which  may  be  laid  to 
their  charge  are  not  only  of  a  different,  but  even  of 
an  oppofite  nature  to  thofe  which  Mr.  Voltaire  im- 
putes to  them  :  Luxury,  profufenefs,  love  of  wo- 
men, vanity,  contempt  for  induflry  and  for  trade, 
which  fome  of  them  have  too  much  neglected,  thcfe 
have  been  the  caufes  of  their  decline.  A  fupercili- 
ous  gravity  and  a  noble  haughtinefs  are  the  diflin- 
guifliing  charafters  of  this  nation  :  But  thefe  vices, 
I  repeat  it,  have  nothing  in  common  with  thofe  ^vhich 
Mr.  Voltaire  cads  on  them. 

Let  us  give  fome  inflances  of  what  we  have  faid. 
Has  not  Baron  de  Belmonte  been  employed  by  the 
Court  of  Madrid,  as  refident  at  the  Hague,  to  the 
fatisfadion  of  both  powders  ?  Have  not  D'Alvaro 
Niines  d' Acofta^  and  his  Father,  ferved  the  court  of 
Lifbon  with  equal  dignity  and  fidelity  ?  Have  not 
the  Suajfos,  the  Texeiras^  the  Nuncs^iht  Prados^  \\\q 
Xime?2es,  the  Pe?~eiras,  and  many  others  deferved  the 
refpecl  of  thofe  who  know  them  ?  Macbado  was  one 
of  the  favourites  of  King  Williajii :  That  monarch  ac- 
knowledged that  he  had  done  his  troops  in  Flanders 
great  fervices  :  Baron  d'Aguillard,  Treafurer  of  the 
Qiieen  of  Hungary,  is  ftill  regretted  at  Vienna  :  Mr. 
Graduh  efteemed  at  the  Court  of  France:  I  (liould 
be  tedious  if  I  attempted  to  give  a  compleat  lift  of  all 
thofe  who  might  be  mentioned  with  praife,andw^ho  yet 
if  Mr.  Voltaire  was  to  be  believed,  would  deferve  the 
moit  odious  of  all  characters.  Thofe  w'ho  are  any 
way  acquainted  with  the  Portugueze  Jew^s  in  France, 
Holland,  and  England,  well  know  that  fo  far  from 
■"their  having  as  he  fays,  the  hitter cjl  hatred  for 
thofe  nations  who  tolerate  them^  they  deem  themfelves 
on  the  contrary  to  form  one  people  with  them. 
Their  Spanilli  and  Portugueze  extradtion  is  become 


C    E    R   T    A    I    M      J    E    W    S.  25 

now  a  point  merely  of  ecclefiaftical  difcipline,  which 
a  fevere  critick  might  arraign  of  prefumption  and  va- 
nity, but  never  of  avarice  and  fuperftition. 

This  is  a  faithful  picture  of  the  Spanifn  and  Portu- 
gueze  Jews.  We  may  form  a  yet  more  advantageous 
notion  of  them,  and  a  more  exaft  and  juft  one,  if  we 
attend  to  this,  that  they  have  greater  obft acles  to  fur- 
mount  than  any  other  nation,  in  order  to  their  pre- 
ferving  a  good  charafter  :  They  are  deprived  of  ma- 
ny refources  for  getting  bread  which  the  profeifors  of 
other  rehgions  have  :  Their  wants  arc  more  nume- 
rous and  more  craving,  of  courfe  their  virtues  meet 
with  more  obllacles,  and  their  vices  with  fcronger 
temptations  :  If  neceffity  knov/s  no  law,  and  if  as  ne- 
ceffity  increafes,  laws  are  lefs  obferved,  except  people 
be  good  by  nature,  it  muft  be  allowed  that  the  Por- 
tugueze  Jews  fettled  in  Holland,  have  more  virtue, 
than  other  nations  ;  and  this  they  have  proved  by  a 
fleady  and  unblemifhed  conduct  more  than  two  cen- 
turies. 

Let  us  fay  a  word  of  the  (i)  German  and  Polifli 
Jews.  Is  it  furprizing  that  a  people  who  are  depriv- 
ed of  all  the  privileges  of  fociety,  who  increafe  and 
multiply  by  the  laws  of  nature  and  religion,  Vvho  are 
defpifed  and  reviled  on  all  fides,  who  are  often  perfe- 
cuted,  always  infulted  (2),  is  it  furprizing,  I  fay, 
that  among  them  human  nature  debafed  and  degrad- 
ed, fliould  feem  to  have  no  acquaintance  with  any 
thing  but  worldly  want  ?  The  fliarp  ftlngs  of  want 
infpire  thefe  martyrs  to  it  with  every  means  of  ba- 
nifliing  or  lelTening  it.  That  contempt  Vvhich  is 
heaped  on  them  choaks  up  all  the  feeds  of  virtue  and 
honour: There  canbenofenfe  offharae, where  undefer- 

(i)  Germ.in  and  PcUfi  Je-zv!.  There  are  in  London  and  at  Amflerdani 
many  German  Jews,  perfons  of  the  highcft  honour,  who  carry  on  trade  with 
the  greateft  probity  :  Thefe  arc  not  anlwerable  for  the  condu>5l  of  that 
fwarm  of  Poliih  and  German  Jews  whom  want  drives  from  their  country, 
and  to  whom  their  brethren  out  of  charity,  give  flieltcr.  In  the  German 
courts  there  have  been  Jews  of  diftinguifhed  merit.  Mr.  Boas  is  efteemed 
and  loved  at  the  Hague  by  people  of  the  nril  quality,      ^lut. 

(i)  Often perftciitid,  ahcays  infultid-  We  have  been  often  witneffes  of  this 
and  have  beeo  affeded  by  it.     Homo/urn  bumsni  nihU  a  me  ulUiwm  futo    CLriJi: 


&5  Lettersof 

ved  contempt  precedes  guilt  :  To  cover  the  innocent 
with  ignominy  is  to  pave  the  way  to  it.  And  is  it  (i) 
guilt  to  continue  firmly  attached  to  a  religion  which 
was  formerly  looked  on  as  facred  by  thofe  very  per- 
fons  who  now  condem  it  ?  We  ought  to  pity  them 
if  they  err  ;  but  it  would  be  ungenerous  (2)  not  to 
admire  the  conftancy,  refolution,  courage,  fleadinefs, 
and  difmtereiiednefs  with  which  they  give  up  fo  ma- 
ny worldly  advantages  (3).  Who  would  not  praifeafon 
whogivesuphis right toagreateftate,becaufehe  thinks, 
perhaps  without  juft  grounds,  that  he  cannot  take 
poffeffion  of  it  without  acting  in  oppofition  to  his  fa- 
ther's will,  by  the  acl  required  of  him  ?  Ought  fo 
delicate,  fo  praife  worthy,  fo  noble  and  fo  uncommon 
a  feeling  to  draw  on  him  from  his  younger  brothers, 
who  enjoy  the  eftate,  contempt,  infults  and  abufe  (4)  ? 
It  is  not  fufficient  to  abftain  from  burning  people  with 
faggots  ;  they  may  be  burned  with  the  pen,  and  this 
fire  is  fo  much  more  to  be  dreaded,  becaufe  it  lafts 
to  future  generations.  What  can  be  expelled  frorii 
the  ignorant  favage  vulgar,  when  the  deftruction  of 
an  unfortunate  nation  is  determined  on,  if  thefe  hor- 
rid prejudices  are  authorifed  by  the  greatefl  genius  of 
the  mofl:  enlightened  age  ?  Let  him  confult  his  rea- 
fon  and  his  heart,  and  I  am  confident  he  will  employ 
all  his  talents  in  recanting  his   errors  :  he  will  Ihew 

(1)  Isitgu'h?  Chriftians  think  fo.  But  akho'  they  think  the  Jews  fliut 
their  eyes  againft,  convii'lion,  they  do  not  claim  a  right  of  ahufing  thtm,  they 
rirher  pity  them.  Such  indeed  arc  the  principles  of  thofe  who  are  led  by 
tlie  true  fpirit  of  chriflianity.      Chrifl. 

(2)  NottoaJmire.  This  firmntfs  may  be  admired,  whilfl:  the  objofl  of  it  Is 
coademnsd.     C/jri/I. 

(3)  So  nuny  ii'orliUy  advantages.  A  Jew  who  prenerouHy  gives  up  all  thcfe 
3<lvanta<rcs  for  a  religion  which  he  btlievcs  to  be  a  true  one,  altho'  hs  in*y 
err,  is  certainly  as  good  as  aphilofopher  who  is  indiffctnt  to  religion  in  ge- 
neral. This  indifference  cofts  little,  it  require*  no  facrifices,  and  lays  no  con- 
flraint  on  his  pride  or  his  paffions.     EJit. 

(4)  Comtempt,  infults  BiiJ abufe.  We  niuft  al'ow  that  the  modern  chriftiani 
have  not  inherited  thefe  fentiments  from  the  primitive  chriQians  ;  nor  are 
they  thofe  of  the  moll  ancient  fathers,  the  councils,  or  the  apoftlcs,  and  more 
cfpecially  thofe  of  Jefus  Cbrift,  their  head  and  pattern.  F.ithcr,  fays  he  as  he 
CXpired./jrjr/w  them,  for  they  Inoiv  not  inhat  they  do  \  words  full  of  magnanimi« 
ty  and  htroifm,  which  wc  cannot  help  admirinoj.  We  have  no  fears  from  the 
fpirit  of  the  chriftiaii  rcli>!;i()n  :  Our  real  enemies  arc,  envy,  avarice,  f*lfe  po- 
licy, &C.  covered  with  the  mafk  of  religion.     Eiit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  27 

in  a  mafterly  way  that  the  mean  characters  of  certain 
PoHih  and   German   Jews,  are  not    to  be  laid  to  the 
charge  of  that    ancient,  divine  and  facred  rehgion. 
Want, perfecution, various  accidents,  render  them  fuch 
as  other  people  would  be  if  they  profefTed  a  different 
faith,  but  found  themfelves  in  the  fame  circumftances. 
If  among  thefe  wretches  there  have  been  now  and  then 
fome  coifiers,  they  are  not  the  only  coiners  :    They  do 
not  even  make  up  the  greatefl:  number  of  the  guilty 
in  this  way.     If  fome  of  them  cieal  in  old  cloaihs,  this 
like  all  other  trades  is  ufeful  to  fociety,  and  authorif- 
cd  in  every  religion.     But  as  Mr.  Voltaire  weighs  in 
the  balance  of  reafon  and  equity,  the  crimes  of  nati- 
ons ;  as  he  puts  in  one  fcale  the  judicial  regicide  of 
the  Englifli,  in  the  other  the  repeated  attempts  on  the 
life  of  a  good  king  by  a  fet  of  fanaticks,  along  with 
the  horrid  maffacre  perpetrated  by  one  part  of  the  na- 
tion upon  the  other  ;  fo  let  him  weigh  all  the  crimes 
which  the  poor  German  Jews  have  committed    dur- 
ing ten  centuries  ;  allowing  even,  what  is  not  proved, 
that  they  have  been  greater  cHppers  and  cheats  than 
poor  people  of  other  religions.     Let  him  put  in  oppo- 
fition  to  thefe  petty  thefts  and  filchings,    thofe   evils 
which  people  of  the  moft  illuftrious  rank  are  contin- 
ually bringing  upon  the  world  ;  the  fecret  and  pub- 
lick  crimes  which    their  riches  palliate,  hide  and  fteal 
away  from  the  feverity  of  juftice,  becaufe  appearances 
are   faved   and   intercepted  from    publick     view  by 
that  fplendour  which  furrounds  the  culprits.   Let  him 
refieQ:  on  the  tranfgrcflions  of  thofe  who   are  punifli- 
ed  by  publick  infamy  ;  let  him  v/eigh,   calculate   and 
compare,  and    then   let  him  pronounce  the  fentence. 
Can   it  be   Mr.  Voltaire,   who  gives  a  free  courfe  to 
fuch  dark  unmerited  calumnies,  that  have  been  heap- 
ed on  this  people  ?     Why  does  he  not  rather  employ 
his  talents  in  difpelhng  a  prejudice  which  difgraces  hu- 
man nature  ? 

In  this  chapter  he  fecms  to  me  befides  to  have  af- 
ferted  other  things  raflily,  altho'  they  are  not  of  fo 
great  importance  as  the  former.     That  fuppqfed  ig- 


28  LETTERSOF 

norance  which  he  afcribes  to  the  Jews,  is  by  no  means 
proved  (i).  They  had,  and  ftill  have  among  them 
learned  men,  (2)  in  thofe  countries  where  they  enjoy 
tranquiHty.  Their  knowledge  of  tafticks  feems  not  to 
have  been  contemptible  ;  their  language  has  great 
beauties  ;  and  if  Mr.  Voltaire  had  added  a  competent 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  (3),  to  -the  immenfity  of 
his  other  accomplifliments,  he  would  have  been  flruck 
with  the  poetical  beauties  of  which  it  is  fufceptible. 
What  tranfpires  of  them  in  the  works  of  men  who 
are  but  imitators  of  poor  tranllations  is  a  proof  of  this ; 
witnefs  the  noble  odes  of  Rouffeau  and  the  fublime 
paiTages  in  Athahah.  Has  not  Mr.  Voltaire  him- 
feif  drawn  materials  out  of  the  fame  mine  to  adorn 
works  of  a  different  kind  ?  Ifaiah  is  full  of  poetic 
fire,  which  fhews  that  arts,  fciences,  good  tafte, 
prevailed  at  the  court  of  Juda.  It  would  be  eafy  to 
pfove,  that  after  the  captivity  and  the  difperfion  of  the 
Jewifh  nation,  they  had  learned  men  as  well  in  Arabia 
as  in  Spain,  where  they  were  frequently  phyficians 
and  comptrollers  of  the  houfhold  to  kings.  Maimo- 
nides  poffefied  all  the  fciences  of  his  age. 

This  people^  fays   Mr.  Voltaire,  were  ne'uer famous 
for  any  art.     It  is  difficult  to  pierce  thro'  the  obfcu- 

(  t )  By  nn  means  proved — Ar'iftotle,  quoted  by  Clearrhus,  fays  that  when  he 
was  in  Afia,  he  was  vifitcd  by  a  Jew  of  fucb  profound  erudition,  ihat  in  com- 
parifon  tg  him  the  Greeks  fcemed  exceedingly  ignorant. — See  la  Repuhlique  des 
Hebyeu:< par  B.ifnage,  p.  19.  of  the  Holland  edition,  8vo.      u-'tit. 

(a)  T^hcy  pill haiie  amon^  them  learned  men.  We  make  no  doubt  ol  it ;  only 
v:e  wifli  that  thcfe  learned  men  would  employ  a  little  more  of  their  time,  in 
tlie  defence  of  their  facred  writings,  aguinft  fo  many  writers  who  daily  at- 
tack them  ;  and  that  they  would  not  always  leave  it  to  Chriftians  to  fight 
their  battles.  Works  ol  this  kind,  cleared  of  all  thofeRaiiinnical  ideas,  which 
are  now  out  of  falhion,  even  among  the  Jews,  would  certainly  do  them  honour 
and  be  ufcful  to  the  publidc.     Chrijl. 

(3)  ^J  competent  Lrwzvledge  of  the  Hebreiu.  The  author  could  not  more  po- 
litely reproach  Mr.  Voltaire  with  his  ignorance  of  the  holy  language,  but 
^Yc  know  not  whether  this  charge  is  well  founded.  For  befides  that, 
thiiillulh-Ious  writer  often  quotes  the  Hebrew  text,  and  that  we  have  heard 
feme  of  his  friends  fay  thit  lie  lias  been  long  employed  in  this  fiudy,  would 
he  have  been  fo  imprudent  as  to  fpcak  of  our  writings  as  he  does,  without 
uiidcrdanding  our  language  .■■  Is  it  not  probable  that  the  miftakes  which  c- 
Icape  him  rather  proceed  from  want  of  thought,  than  from  ignorance  of  a  lan- 
guage fo  necefl'ary^  to  his  piirpofa  ?  And  if  he  does  not  underftand  it,  would 
it  not  become  him  better  to  own  it,  thati  to  make  a  vain  parade  of  knowing 
what  he  docs  nut  know  .'     £^it. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  29 

rity  of  antiquity  fo  remote  ;  but  In  fplte  of  that  veil 
which  the  Greeks  have  call  over  every  thing  that 
went  before  them,  with  a  view  of  engrofTmg  to  theni- 
felves  the  origin  of  every  art  and  fcience,  it  is  clear 
that  the  Jews  have  preceded  them  In  many  arts,  were 
it  only  that  of  engraving  on  precious  ( 1 )  ftones.  The 
fame  might  be  faid  of  many  other  arts,  and  they  might 
be  fufpedled  for  feme  more  ;  at  lead  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  the  Hebrew  alphabet  was  the  original  of  the 
Greek,  which  has  ferved  as  a  model  of  Nomenclature 
to  that  of  the  Latin. 

The    Jezos,     fays    Mr.   Voltaire,    never '•tvcre  7iatu~ 
ral philofopbers^  geometricians  or  ojlronomcrs.     I  fay  no- 
thing of  natural  philofophy,  as  no  ancient  people  ever 
made  any  progrefs  in  it.     The  natural  hiftory.  written, 
by  Solomon,  preceded  thofe  written  by  Ariiiotle  and 
Pliny  by  many  centuries.     It  would  have    been  dim- 
cult  for   Solomon  as  a  monarch  or  a  philofopher,  to 
have  inferted  a  greater   number  of  frivolous  things  in- 
to his  works  than  thefe  two  learned   men  have  done  : 
Solomon  -wroie.  from  the  Cedar  to  the  Hyjfop^  thisfuf- 
fices.     Are  there  not  traces  of  Geometry  to  be  found 
in  the  defcription  of  the     tabernacle,    and  (till  more 
in  that  of  the  temple  of  Solomon,  and  in   the  defcrip- 
tion of  that  temple  of  which  Ezekiel  gives  the  plan  ? 
As  to   Aftronomy,  I  am  amazed   that  Mr.   Voltaire 
does  not  know  that   the   Jews,  of  all  ancient  nations, 
were  the  beft  acquainted  with  the  calculations  on  the 
revolutions  of  the  fun  and  moon,  the  art  of  intercala- 
tion, and  all  thofe  other   aftronomicai   difcoveries  by 
which  they   have  preferved  their  calendar  free  from 
thatconfufion  and  embarraffment  to  which  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  were  fubjecl.     This  obfervation  is  wor- 
thy of  (2)  attention.     Hence  the  opinion  of  their  Rab- 

E 

(l)  Prec'ieuf  fjo^ff. The  prnoris  in  tlie  book  of  Esodu",  ch.  2S.  v.  9.  An /f  I  Leu 
fhali  tale   tivo  Onyx  f.ones,   ami  grave  en   them  the  n-imes  of  tijt  children  of  Jfruel. 

(a)  Worthy  fif  .lUentlon.  Halicnus  comfutus  anni  judac't  qvo  n'-:h'l  itcciiraiius,  ni' 
hU  berfeSliu!  in  co  gcnere  vf  /ro  ris  coii/i/oril/us  cyclorui/r  palchialivi,'!  Vf  E  nfiarvm 
fsr  tiles  melius  bare  arir^n  i'if^-rt  lite.it  aut  /j.-.-r?  — Jofcrh  Sca'.i^j.-r,  Lib.  g.  A^t. 


3b  Lettersof 

bies,  that  this  extraordinary  aflronomical  knowledge 
was  revealed  to  Moles,  and  that  it  was  always  a  fecret 
to  other  nations.  "1  his  however  is  certain,  that  Mofes 
had  brought  certain  difcoveries  of  this  nature  from 
r.gypt,  which  were  fuperior  to  thofe  of  his  age  in  this 
Icience.  The  work  of  Mr.  Pliiche,  which  is  not  fuf- 
ficiently  (i), elieerned,  becaufe  our  learned  men  are 
generally  unacquainted  Avith  Hebrew,  unfolds  the 
principles  of  ?dl  thofe  feicnces  which  the  Greeks 
have  borrowed  from  the  JeAjvs  and  Phenicians,  who 
were  once  their  anceilors  and  neighbours.  The  i'.rts 
and  fcienccs  were  reared  among  thefe  latter  altho* 
they  afterwards  negle^ed  them. 

But  I  proceed  to  fncv/  that  the  figure  and    nomen- 
clature of  the     alphabet,  cam-e  originally  from    the 
Hebrews  or  Phenicians  ;   for  thefe  had  one    common 
language  which  was  no  Jargo7i.     The  Pizmilus  or   the 
Carthaginian  of  Fjautus  proves  it  fulTiciently,    as  well 
iis  many  other  paHages  of  antiquity  ;  but  above  all  the 
names  and  figures  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.     It 
niuft  be  obvious  to  every  one,  that  the    characters  A, 
B,  C,  D,  are  a  corruption  of, the  Greek  letters,  Alfiha 
Beta^  Ga?iinia,  Delta,  and  it  is  as  clear  that  thefe  are 
taken  from  the  Hebrew  Iciters,  ,Akpb,  Beth^    Cul- 
'    ■niel^Dc'Jeih.     What  demonfirates  this  point  is,  that 
the  name  of  every  letter  in  the  Hebrew     alphabet 
denotes  the  figure  which  that  letter  reprefents,  and 
is  thus  conneded  w^ith  the  firfl  origin    of  writing 
v;hich    was     hieroglyphical.     Hieroglyphicks  fpeak 
to  the  eye  thro'  the  medium  of  images  rather  than 
by  arbitrary  churr.tlers.     1  fhall  mention  but  a  few 
plain  inftances  ;  ,the  i]t7/j  fignifies  an  Houjc,  of  which. 
that  letter  bears  arefemblance  ;  the  Glniel,  or  Ga?ucl^ 
dignities  a  Camel,  and  the  letter  reprefents  the  neck 
of  that  animal  :  the  Dalcth  fignihes  a  Dosr,  and  is  hke 

(r)  Noifr.ff.c'iniiUejleciniJ.  The  Jtwilli  apo1op;!ft  tloes  Mr.  1'1vk!t«  mnro 
juftice  here,  than  Tdr.  Voltaire  I'liis  latter  l|'caks  of  liim  with  an  air  «f 
t  oiitcmpt  and  clil\lain,  whicli  icik'dts  no  honour  on  his  criticifm.  It  fecn-.s  al- 
io to  ixvour  of  rLk;un;c;it.  U  it  wtll  l.nuv.'n  that  Ivh.  I'.uchs  wus  »uL  4 
ritUfo^Lti .    CLiif:. 


CERTAIN        Tew    S.  71 

©ne  ;  the  Vdu,  rignlfics  and  reprefents  a  Pillar  ;  the 
Zain^  denotes  a  Sahre^  and  has  the  figure  of  it ;  th2 
Sifi  or  Se/i,  fignifies  Tcetb,  and  reprefents  a  comb  or 
a  trident  ;  the  Gna/n,  an  Eye  ;  the  Pbe,  a  Mnuth^  re-- 
femble  thefe  things  nearly.  So  much  is  lallicient  to 
fiiow  how  many  proofs  might  be  added  to  enrich  i\1r. 
Piuche's  fydem.  Perhaps  on  a  future  day  I  may 
give  a  more  ample  collection  on  this  fubjetfi. 

Mr.  Voltaire,  in  the  fame  chapter,  feems  again  to 
upbraid  the  Jews  with  the  manner  in  which  they  ex- 
rerminated  fom.e  colonies  of  Canaanites,  and  afcribes 
to  this  action  that  hatred  which  other  nations  bear 
them.  I  fuppofc  Mr.  de  Voltaire's  meaning  mud  be, 
that  this  was  the  catife  of  the  ancient  hatred  of  na- 
tions. Now  this  hatred  can  only  take  place  betv.eeu 
the  conquered  and  the  conquerors,  and  I  cannot 
think  that  it  was  ftronger  againft  the  Jews  than  a- 
gaind  any  other  nation  in  like  cafe.  In  the  firft  place, 
the  Jews  cannot  be  charged  here  with  any  cruelty, 
becaufe  a  divine  oracle  fentenced  thofe  men  to  de- 
Itru6tion  ;  they  had  filled  up  the  meafure  of  their  ini- 
quities, and  as  the  Scripture  fays,  the  earth  was  pre- 
paring tovQinit  them  up  nnd  cnji  them  out.  But  what 
confutes  this  charge  without  recurring  to  authority, 
is  that  the  legiflator  of  the  Jews,  in  his  facred  code, 
orders  them  in  every  other  war,  to  obferve  the  rreat- 
efl  caution :  He  enjoins  them  to  forbear  even  from 
cutting  down  trees,  or  commencing  hodilities,  until 
peace  y/as  offered.  Ihe  rights  of  nature  and  of  n''.- 
tions,  in  times  of  peace  and  war,  were  as  religiouliy 
obferved  among  the  Jews  as  am.ong  other  nations 
through  this  country.  Tephta's  reafons  for  declarinf 
war  againft  the  Ammonities,  are  drawn  up  in  a  ftile 
which  may  ferve  as  a  model  to  all  generations.  The 
oracle  upbraids  the  jews  with  their  too  great  mercy 
towards  the  profcribed  nations.  In  fnort,  if  we  com- 
pare the  hiftory  of  the  Jews  with  that  of  every  other 
nation,  it  will  be  found  that  they  have  all  behaved 
themfelves  nearly  alike.  In  ancient  times,  celibacy 
uas  rare,    and  poK-camv  almoii  uniyerfal  :  The  art 


3  2  L    E    T    T    E    R    S       O    F 

of  navigation  was  not  fufficiently  extended  to  hurt 
population  or  to  convey  colonies  to  diftant  regions. 
As  foon  as  a  nation  found  itfelf  too  much  confined 
within  its  holders,  it  rulhed  into  another  country 
and  endeavoured  to  fettle  there.  Bodily  fcrength 
and  force  fet  to  work  by  necefiity,  were  the  only 
rights  then  known.  What  other  right  did  Virgil  give 
to  Eneas  with  his  fugitive  gods,  when  he  dethroned 
Turnus,  ravilhed  the  hand  ofLavinia,  and  fettled  in 
Italy?  I.ct  us  flrip  his  hiftory  of  all  the  enchanting 
ficlions  of  poetry,  and  what  elfe  fliall  we  find  in  it! 
Romulus  treated  the  villages  bordering  on  the  Tiber, 
jull  as  IMofes  did  the  people  of  /irnon  and  Jaboc  ! 

One  man  may  not  perhaps  refemble  another,  but 
the  men  of  one  country  always  refemble  thofe  of  ano- 
ther in  a  high  degree,  and  (Hll  more,  thofe  of  their 
own  country.  The  fermentation  of  paffions,  which 
in  ail  nations,  are  the  fame,  produces  our  adions, 
and  their  difi'ere.nt  combinations  depend  upon  cir- 
cumflances.  Thefe  circumllances,  although  admit- 
ting  variety,  are  perpetually  repeated :  Uniformity 
is  at  the  bottom,  variety  is  in  the  form.  Intereff, 
ambition,  vanity,  love  of  glory,  the  univerfal  tafte 
for  pleafure,  always  rule  mankind.  Virtue  makes 
flruggles.  Sometimes  victorious, .  oft^n  vanquifhed, 
always  oppofed,  feldom  can  flie  eflabliih  a  firm  and 
lading  empire  upon  the  wrecks  of  vice,  of  which  the 
number  is  prodigious.  The  difference  of  climates 
can  alone  produce  a  phyfical  alteration  perceivable 
in  the  general  organization  of  a  people  taken  collec- 
tively, and  may  have  an  inliuence  on  morals.  The 
animals,  the  fruits  of  t!ic  earth  are  a  proof  of  the 
power  of  climate:  What  r^\bbe'  du  Eos  and  Mr. 
Montefquieu  have  faid  on  thisfubjecl  is  inconteftible, 
if  it  is  confined  within  proper  bounds.  But  moral 
caufes  may  reflrain.  for  a  time  the  power  of  phyfical 
caufe?.  Of  thofe",  education  is  the  mofl:  powerful  ; 
but  it  can  never  entirely  change  the  elfence  of  the 
charafter  ;  tlie  form. only  v, ill  appear  altered.  Edu- 
cation unfolds  qualities  which  it  does  not  give.     Cir- 


CERTAIN    Jew  s.  33 

cumflances  and  natural  temper  are  the  tefts  of  virtue, 
which  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  heart,  and  conftitutes 
the  moral  fyftem  of  a  people.  Let  us  not  then  make 
an  abfurd  exception  from  an  eternal  truth,  in  order 
to  turn  the  Jewifh  people  into  ridicule,  and  render 
them  the  objects  of  deteftation. 

Might  they  not  fay  to  the  whole  Chriftian  world 
what  Mr.  de  Montefquieu  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
a  voung  Jewefs,  who  was  arraigned  before  the  tribu- 
nal of  the  inquifition.  We  need  alter  but  one  word, 
T^ou  dejpife,  yoii  ( i )  hate  us,  who  believe  the  fame 
things  you  do,  becaufe  zue  do  not  believe  every  ihirig  you 
do.  IVeprofefs  a  religion  tuhieh  you  know  was  formerly 
the  favourite  of  God  :  'We  think  that  Godjiill  loves  it, 
and  becaufe  you  think  that  he  loves  it  no  longer,  you  def- 
pife  thofe  who  are  fallen  intofo  pardonable  an  error,  as 
to  believe  that  He  loves  fill  what  he  loved  formerly.  If 
you  have  been  fo  much  favoured  by  heaven  as  to  have 
been  Ooown  the  truth,  youjhould  be  thankful;  but  ought 
the  children  who  have  entered  into  their  father's  inhe- 
ritance, to  hate  thsfe  who  have  been  deprived  of  it  !  i  he 
Jewifo  religion,  (fays  the  fame  author)  is  an  ancient 
trunk  of  a  tree  which  has  produced  two  branches  that  co- 
ver the  earth.  Let  then  this  facred  fource  berefpeO:- 
ed,  and  let  thofe  be  pitied  who  have  fuch  great  fa- 
crihces  to  make  to  this  old  lav/.  The  Patriarchs,  the 
Priefts,  the  ancient  Jews,  offered  up  lambs,  flieep 
and  bulls  ;  the  modern  Jews  offer  up  on  the  altar  of 
.their  faith  much  more  co(Uy  vidims,  feif-love,  that 
precious  incenfe  fo  hardly  furrendered  by  vanity, 
pods,  emplovments,  thofe  {horteH:  and  mofl  effeftual 
means  of  laying  up  riches  and  of  acquiring  confe- 
quence  in  the  world.  Philofophers  (for  in  fpite  of 
Mr.  Voltaire  we  have  fome  amongil  us)  have  feel- 
ings too  nice  to  make  a  (2)  traffick  of  religion.  They 
haverefpeft  enough  for  God  to  adore  his  decrees  in 

(x)  Once  more  we  niuft  obrcrve,  that  the  Chrifti^n  religion  docs  uot  teach 

us  to  li.J]  'fd  or  Luii  any  thing  but  errors,      drift. 

(2)   Traff.cl  cfrdlgloii.  Chrifcians  do  not  invite  the  Jews  to  make  a  trsfHcfc 
•f  religion,  b^;t  only  to  open  their  eyes  before  the  light.     Cbxiit. 


34  Lettersctf 

fecret.  The  Jews  are  not  lefs  worthy  (i)  of  pralfe  for 
having  firmnefs  and  conftancy  of  mind  fiifficient  to 
remain  in  that  reh'gion  which  is  profcribed  and  re- 
viled. 

Mr.  Voltaire  has  already  begun  (2)  an  apology  for. 
this  nation,  but  in  a  flile  unbecoming  the  (3)  fubjed:!:. 
1  hope  he  will  vouchfafe  to  do  it  more  ferioufly.  It 
belongs  to  (4)  him  to  accomplifli  the  extirpation  of 
thofe  prejudices  which  he  has  combated,  and  which 
fo  cruelly  keep  up  the  hatred  of  Chriitians  again'l 
the  Jews,  who  are  accufed  of  having  put  Chriil  to 
death.  He  was  judicially  condemned  to  die  by  the 
Romans  only,  who,  as  Chriftians  themfelves  allow, 
then  had  alone  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the 
Jews.  Even  Herod  was  a  heathen  :  Pilate  had  the  (5) 
greatefl  (hare  in  the  condemnation  :  The  punifhment 
of  the  crofs  was  unknown  to  the  Jews  according  to 
Mr.  Voltaire,  And  altho'  the  cruelty  and  fury  with 
■which  their  aflcellors  are  charged  fhould  be  (6) 
well  grounded,  and  even  granting  that  the  ancient 
Jews  not  only  approved  but  befides  demanded, 
preiTed  and  folicite-d    this   condemnation,  (7)    Mr. 

•(l)    Worthy  nf  Pralfe.     Tfiofe  vr?TO    1oo?t  OH    tjie    firmntfs  of  the  Jew* 
^s  obrtinacy,    cannot    avoifl  pitying  and  excufing  them.      C.hrifl. 
■    (%)    Begun   an  Apology.     It    rs    very  fingular    and    remarkable,  that    Mr. 
Voltaire,  who  i«   a  declarefl   enemy  of  the  Jews  in  all   j)oint.s,  (hould  be  fo 
nnlucky    as  to  Ih-ive  to  juftify  them  in  this  one.   Chri/l. 

f  2)  Urfhrcomhig  the  fu!i]efi.  See  in  the  Na^i'eaux  Melnroes,  tome  3  ieme, 
th-e  .-ermon  of  the  pretended  Rabin  Akib,  where  tlus  Chnlllan  falls  tquallf 
on  Jews  and  Chriftians,      Edit. 

If  the  iVile  is  unbecoming,  the  arguments  he  ufes  are  flill  wcrfe,  all  that 
be  fays  on  this  fubjed  can  only  ferve  to  excite  tlic  contempt  of  the  learned, 
and  the  indignation  of  Chriftians.      Chriji. 

(4)  //  belongs  to  J/wi.  Of  a'l  Chriftians  he  is  the  .only  one  to  whom  wc 
««n  have  this  obligation.     EJit. 

The  Editors  are  miftp.ktn  here,  another  author  has  undertaken  to  juftify 
tlieir  fathers,  and  has  ventured  to  pronounce  the  reus  ef  Mortis.  He  is  bold  e- 
Iiowh  to  fiy  that,  ivhoc-ver  rifei  ub  againR  the  religion  of  his  fbuntry,  dt- 
fervcs  dciith -•  What  an  imprudmt  man  is   this!    Chrif, 

(5)  'The  greatefl  fia re.  This  certainly  is  mifitprefentlng  or  difguifing 
fads     Cbrifl. 

(6)  Be  ivell grovnJcd.  Can  any  body  doubt  of  this  ?  Have  the  author  of 
the  rtfli-iflions  and  Mr.  Voltaire  forgot  thofe  horrid  cries,  Tolle,  cruffge 
funguii   ejus  ]<ip'r  nds  ^ fiiper flios  nojlrus  ?      Chrif. 

,(7)  Mr.  Voltaire  fbeiws.  Mr.  Voltaire  endeavour*  to  (hew  it,  hut 
liis  proofs  arc  far  from  heitig  fatiffacfJory,  and  fo  the  vorld  has  deemed  them: 
S^c  lower,  Utttr  jth. The   diffiTciue  is  oLviou*  between  the   modern 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    \y    S.  ^'j; 

Voltaire  fhews  that  It  is  as  unfair  to  make  their  defccnd- 
ants  anfwerable  for  this,  as  it  would  be  to  cenfurc 
the  prefent  race  of  Romans  for  the  rape  of  the  Sa- 
bincs,  or  for  plundering  the  Samnites.  Befides,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Chriftian  religion, 
the  fulfcrings  of  Chrifl  \vere(i)  neceflary  for  the 
falvation  of  men  ;  and  according  to  Chriflians,  the 
decree  of  providence  was  to  be  fulfilled.  A  preacher 
once  faid,  that  if  Pilate  had  not  happily  thus  expreir. 
ed  himfelf,  ^od  Scripft^  Scripji,  the  world  had  not 
yet  been  faved.  Let  Chriifians  then  ceafe  to  perfe- 
cute  and  revile  thofe  who  as  7nen  are  their  hrethreriy 
and  an  Jeivs^  'are  their  Fathers.  Thefe  are  the  very  (2) 
words  cf  Mr.  Voltaire.  It  is  his  province  to  place 
fhofe  truths  in  their  fulleft  Hght. 

Nothing  would  be  mere  worthy  of  his  pen  than  to 
endeavour  to  ft^fle  national  animofities  of  everv  kind. 
To  put  an  end  to  them  would  be  the  highed  fervicc 
that  could  be  done  to    human  nature.     I  have  fome 
times  faid  to  myfelf  that  men  would  be  happy  if  they 
had  but  one  religion  ;  but  when  I  reflefted  on  the 
private  intereifc  v/hich  fubfifts  even  among  thofe  who 
have  the  fame  worfkip,  I  perceived  that  the  mylleries 
of  human  nature,  took  their  rife  in  human  nature, 
Carthage  and  Rome  did  not  hate  one  another  becaufe 
they  had  a  different  rehgion,  but  becaufe  their  intereft 
claJhed.      1  fl^iall  not  fpeak  of  the    antipathies  fublill- 
ing  between  modern  nationsjbut  I  think  that  if  all  the 
■  great  men  in  Europe  unanimoufiy  laboured  to  conci- 
liate the  jarring  interefls  of  nations,  it  would  appear 
that  there  is  lefs  cppcfition  betv/eenthem  than  is  fuD« 

Romans  and  the  Jews.  The.fe  latter  blinded  by  the  hereditary  pre  indices  of 
iheir  nati(>n,fo  far  from  abhorring  the  crime  of  their  fathers.aoprovcd  :t,dtfcr.d-. 
ed  it,  and,  as  much  as  in  thcni  hc»,  conftiued  to  it.  Their  I'olt  pica  of  cxcufc  is 
tliat  which  Chriil,  when  he  xvas  dying,  produced  iu  their  favour,  ignorwicc. 
'I'his  the  apoflie  has  repeated,  Si  ct,^no-v'Jftnt  etiim,  nunquam  DomiiivrnGlotle 
cructj'>:)Jfent.  This  one  fentcnce  lays  n;(»rc  in  favour  of  tl'.e  Jews,  tiiaii  all 
the  arguments   of    Mr.   Voltaire.      Cinn. 

fijT/ji  Ji-Jlrinr^s  0/  Ciri/i  -zrert  rec^ury.  The  necfiity  ofthc  death  of 
Chri-ft  docs  no  way  excufc  thofe  who  were  the  authors  of    it.      Clrii). 

(a)  Thi  very  luordi  tf  Air.  Voliairt.  !f  Mr.  Voltaire  4nSts  confe- 
qucntially,  if  he  holds  the  Jews  as  men  to  be  bh  brethren,  and  as  Je-zvs  to  bt 
hh  fathers,  it  niull  be  allowcU  that  this  ;^rcai  n-an  ufws  his  family  vcrvfcvcrc- 


j6  L    E    T    T    E    R    G      6    F 

pofed,  and  that  the  fyftem  of  the  Abbe  St.  Pierre 
Blight  become  fo/nething  more  than  the  dream  of  a 
worthy  man.  I  have  in  my  head  the  embryo  of  this 
fyftem  which  requires  time  and  meditation  to  unfold. 
(i)  An  eminent  writer  has  lately  given  us  a  fketch  of 
it.  The  firfl  drafts  are  always  imperfed,  but  they 
are  improved  by  time,  and  this  time  would  be  well 
and  ufefully  employed  in  the  fervice  of  human  nature. 
I  exhort  thofe  whofe  knowledge  is  more  extenfive 
than  mine  to  think  ferioufly  of  it,  and  above  all  things 
not  to  forget  the  Jews. 

(l)  J^n  eminent  ivriter,  &c.  John  James  RonfTeau,  iee  \\\fi  frojeB  of  c 
perpetual  peace,  and  in  the  Nouiieaux  Melanges  tro:J]enie  parte,  the  jokes  of 
Mr.  Voltaire  on  this  fcheme,  the  intention  of  which  is  at  leaft  iaudab'.e. 
Edit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  37 

L  E  T  T  E  R(i)  III. 

From  the  author  of  the  Reflexions  to  Mr.    Voltaire, 
fending  him  the  manufcript  of  the  Reflexions, 

SIR, 


w- 


E  R  E  I  addrefTing  any  other  but  you  I  fhould 
be  in  fome  difficulty.  I  am  fending  you  Critical  Re- 
flexions on  a  part  of  your  immortal  writings  ;  I  who 
am  their  greateft  admirer,  I  who  ought  to  read  and 
ftudy  them  in  filence.  But  as  I  reipe^t  the  author 
more  than  I  regard  the  work,  I  prefume  his  magna- 
nimity will  pardon  me  this  piece  of  criticifm,  in  fa- 
vour of  the  truth  which  is  fo  dear  to  him,  and  from 
which  perhaps  he  has  never  fwerved  (2)  but  in  this 
fingle  inftance.  I  expe£t  at  lealt  that  he  will  think  me 
lefs  unworthy  of  pardon  on  this  account,  that  I  am 
acting  in  favour  of  a  whole  nation  to  which  I  belong, 
and  to  which  I  owe  this  apology. 

I  had  the  honour,  fir,  of  feeing  you  in  Holland  when 
I  was  very  young.  Since  that  time  I  have  been  im- 
proving myfelf  in  your  works  which  have  been  ever 
my  mod  delightful  lludy.  Thefe  itudies  have  taught 
me  to  contend  with  you,  nay  more,  they  have  given 
me  courage  enough  to  tell  you  fo. 
I  am  beyond  all  expreffion, 
With   fentiments  full  of 

efl:eem  and  veneration,  &c. 

(l)  This  Utter  and  the falloivlng  were  printed  at  the  Hague  in  1766.  Edit. 

(a)  But  in  this  ftngle  Inftanct.  This  is  a  crtmpliment  :  Mr.  Voltaire 
doss  not  deny  kis  having  fwerved  from  the  truth  in  more  tnan  gne  inilance. 
Edit. 

F 


%^  ii^  3    T    T    E    R    S       OF 

LETTER     IV. 

Mr,    Voltaire's    Anfwcr  to   the  foregoing  Letter* 

S  I  R, 

1 

HE  lines  you  complain  of  are  cruel  and  unjuft. 
There  are  among  you  very  learned  and  refpectable 
perfons.  Your  letter  is  a  fufficient  evidence  of  this. 
I  fliall  take  care  to  infert  a  cancel-leaf  in  the  new  (i) 
edition.  When  a  man  is  in  the  wrong  he  fhould 
make  reparation  for  it,  and  I  was  wrong  in  attribut- 
insf  to  a  whole  nation  the  vices  of  fome  individuals. 

I  fliall  tell  you  as  frankly,  that  there  are  many  v/ho 
cannot  endure  your  (2)  lav/s,  your  books,  or  your 
fuperftitions.  They  fay  that  your  nation  has  done, 
in  every  age,  much  hurt  to  itfelf  and  to  the  (3)  hu- 
man race.  If  you  are  a  philofopher,  as  you  leem  to 
be,  (4)  you  will  think  as  thofe  gentlemen  do,  but 
you  will  not  fay  it.  Superflition  is  the  mod  dreadful 
fcourge  of  the  earth  ;  it  is  fuperftition  that  in  every 
age  has  caufed  fo  many  Jews  and  Chriftians  to  be 
flaughiered  ;  *tis  fuperftition  that  ftill  fends  you  Jews 
to  the  ftake  among  nations  praife  worthy  (5)  in  other 
refpeds.  There  are  certain  afpefts  in  which  human 
natdire  is  infernal  nature  :  But  genteel  people  when 

(i)  In  the  nerv  edition.  It  appears  to  us  that  it  would  he  better  to  infert 
a  cance'-leaf  in  the  foregoing  edition,  and  to  corre(Sl  the  new  one.     Edit. 

(2)  Your  luxvs,  your  boch,  or  your  jufjcrfthions-  Thefe  laws  and  thefe  books, 
(at  leafl;  thofe  which,  form  the  bafis  of  religion)  are  refpeded  by  the  whole 
Chndiaii  world       Aut. 

(3)  Much  hurt  io  the  human  race-  Perhaps  the  Jewifh  nation,  like  others, 
has  done  much  hurt  to  itfelf,  but  I  cannot  fee  that  it  has  done  much  to  man- 
kind in  general.  I  except  thofe  nations  which  the  divine  oracle  had  fentcnc- 
td  to  dtflrudion. 

Wiicre  is  the  people,  what  is  the  nation,  or  hiftory,  to  which  we  may  not 
apply  thofe  five  lines  of  a  middling  poet  (Statius)  ? 
Exsidut  ilia  diis  iT-vo,  ncc  poflcra  credant 
bdccula  :   nos    cerfe  taceamus  ct  obruta  multa 
l^'oii'c'  ligi  no/lrJ"  patiaiTiur  crimi/ia  Ccntit.      Aut, 

(4)  Tuu  -uill  think  as  thefe  gentlemen  do.  I  havc  not  the  honour  of  thinking 
as iliofe  gentlemen  do.     Aut. 

(5)  i<lat  oni  inother  refpeHs.  I  grant  that  fupcrftition  has  been  in  all  agei 
the  caufc  of  grcut  evils.     A^t. 


€    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    Vv'    S»  39 

they  are  palTing  by  the  place  of  execution,  Avhere  they 
break  men  on  the  wheel,  order  their  coachman  to 
drive  on  quickly  to  the  opera  houfe,  in  order  to  di- 
vert their  attention  from  this  horrid  fight  on  the 
way. . 

1  might  enter  into  a  (i)  difpute  with  you  about  the 
knowledge  you  afcribe  to  the  ancient  Jews,  and  could 
fhew  you  that  they  were  as  ignorant  as  the  French 
in  the  reign  of  Chilperick.  1  could  make  you  ac- 
knowledge that  the  jargon  of  a  little  province,  mixed 
with  the  Chaldaick,  Pheniciai'i,  and  Arabian  dia- 
lects, was  as  poor  and  rough  a  language  aa  our  old 
Gauliflr.  But  perhaps  I  fnould  (2)  provoke  you  to 
anger,  and  you  feem  -to  be  too  worthy  a  man  to  de- 
ferve  provocation.  As  you  are  a  Jew,  (3)  reniain 
fo.  You  will  never  cut  the  throats  of  42,000  men 
becaufe  they  pronounced  the  word  Schibboleth 
wrong,  nor  dedroy  24,000  men  for  having  Iain  with 
the  (4)  Madianite  women.  But  be  a  philofopher. 
This  is  my  beft  v/ifh  to  you  in  this  fhort  life. 
I  have  the  honour  of  remaining, 
Sir, 

With  all  the  fentiments  of  refpecl, 
Due  to  you,  &c. 

V — ,  Gentleman  in  Ordinary 
to  the  mod  Chriitian  King^. 

(j)  Enter  tnio  a  d'lfputi  ivitb  you.  It  does  not  become  me  to  difjUite  with 
Mr.  Voltaire;  I  (houldl^s  a  dwarf  attacking  a  giant.  Cut  even  tho'  the 
j;iant  fliould  add  cunning  to  ftrength,  ytt  the  dwarf  might  not  perhaps  be  in 
the  wrong.     Aut. 

(2)  IJhoul't  provole  foti.  I  never  am  provoked  to  anger  a^ainft  my  teach- 
ers, but  at  the  fame  time  1  never  yield  to  mere  authority  :  Their  rcafons  a- 
lane  can  convince  ma  :  Befides,  it  would  ill  become  me  to  be  angry  after  all 
the  compliments  which  Mr .  Voltaire  does  me  the  honour  to  piy  me,  and  af- 
ter the  generous  declaration  at  the  beginning  of  his  If  ttcr.     Aut. 

(3)  Remain/a.  This  is  a  piece  of  advice  which  I  (hall  willingly  fol- 
low .      Aut. 

(4)  Madianite  zvcmen.  Mr.  Voltaire  only  wants  to  b«  merry  at  the  end 
sfthis  letter  ;  but  he  miiftlinow  that  the  pronunciation  of  the  word  Schib- 
boleth, was  not  the  cauf'-- of  the  mnffiicre  of  thcEphraimitcs,  but  that  tiieir 
corrupt  pronunciation  of  it  difcovered  the  conquered  party  from  the  other  : 
'I'he  horrors  of  civil  war  are  always  m<>re't!readful  than  thofe  of  other  wars  : 
And  as  to  the  maffacrc,  on  aicount  of  the  Madianites,  it  was  not  a  puniih- 
Kient  inflifted  merely  for  their  having  lain  with  rhem,  but  f  ,r  the  i.lolatry 
K)  which  they  gave  thcmfclves  up  thro'  the  fedmflion  cf  thtfe  women.     Aut. 

Sea  vn  this  fubjed  the  letters  of  tlic  German  Jew?.     Edit. 


40  L    E    T    T    E    R    S      O    f 


L  E  T  T  E  R     V. 

Fro7n  Joseph  D'Acosta,  to  the  Revd.  Dr.  John- 
son, minijler  ofChepJiow^inMonmouthJhire^.con- 
tainingfome  ohfervations  onthe  Critical  Reflex- 
ions, and  on  Mr,  Voltaire. 


OU  afk  me,  Sir,  what  people  here  think  of  thi 
reflexions  which  I  fent  you  fome  time  ago.  it  ap- 
pears to  me  that  they  have  been  well-received  even 
amongft  Chriftians.  Two  periodical  writers  have 
already  given  an  account  of  them,  and  both  of  them 
^  favourable  one. 

/  The  author  of  the  Monthly  Review  reprefents  our 
apologift  as  a  Ikilful  advocate,  an  ingenious  and  po- 
lite writer.  He  charges  him  however  warmly,  with 
having  made  too  great  a  diftinftion  between  the  Por- 
tugueze  and  German  Jews,  and  with  having  thrown 
back  upon  the  latter  thofe  imputations  which  Mr. 
Voltaire  cads  upon  the  whole  nation. 

"  There  is  fomething,  fays  he,  too  partial  and  in- 
*'  vidious  in  thofe  diflinftions,  however  juft  they  may 
"  be,  to  entitle  us  to  give  the  author  the  honourable 
"  name  of  defender  of  the  Jewifli  nation  in  general  : 
*'  if  Mr.  Voltaire  himfelf  acknowledges  his  miftake  in 
"  charging  a  whole  nation  with  the  vices  of  fome  in- 
dividuals, the  apologift  is  in  many  refpeds  as  culpa- 
ble as  he,  in  endeavouring  to  fhift  the  burthen  off 
the  fhoulders  of  his  own  party,  the  Portugueze  and 
Spaniards,  and  to  lay  it  on  the  Germans  and  Poles. 
"  It  is  undoubted  that  the  former  have  been  to  this 
"  time  moro  opulent,  have  had  the  advantages  of  a 
"  better  education,  have  been  received  more  favour- 
'•  ably  by  the  great  ;  but  how  far  thefe  advantages 
"  are  to  be  afcribed  to  tliofecaufes  which  our  author 
"  mentions,  I  fliall  not  undertake  to  determine, 
'•  Their  general  and  conflant  perfuafion  that  they 
'?^  are  deicended  from  the  principal  families  which 
were  fent  into  Babylon,  and  which  they  hold  v/erc 


£-4 


C    E    R    T    A   1  K      J    E    W    S.  4-1 

*'  afterwards  banifhed  Into  Spain  by  Nabiichodono- 
*'  zor,  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  caufes  of  their  fcru- 
"  pulous  care  to  diftinguifli  themfelves  from  their  o- 
*'  ther  brethren.  But  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
"  the  difference  fubfifling  between  them  proceeds 
"  from  this,    that  the  Spaniih  and  Portugueze  Jews 

have   always    lived  in  thofe  countries,  botli  under 

the  Califfs  and  Chriilian  princes,  in  great  opulence 
*' aftd  good  repute,  as  well  for  their  knowledge  in 
^'  the  arts  and  (i)  fciences,  as  for  their  {kill  iii  trade 
"  and  bufinefs,  whilll  the  other  Jews,  fcattered  over 
■"  the  whole  eaftern  and  weilern  empires  have  always^ 
"'lived,  fmce  the  time  of  Conftantine  the  great,  in 
•"  Greece  and  Afia,  -and  fince  that  of  Charlemagne, 
'*  in  the  Weft,  in  oppreffion  and  mifery,  looked  upon 
"  as  flaves,  and  inhumanly  treated  as  fuch.  And  they 
'*^  are  treated  much  in  the  fame  manner  now,  even 
'*  in  Europe,  almoft  in  every  part  of  Germany,  at 
*'  Venice,  and  in  all  the  (2)ecclefiaftical  ftates.'* 

The  apologift  has  been  much  affefted  by  this  accu- 
fation  of  partiality  :  He  has  lately  anfwered  it,  and  his 
anfwer,  which  has  been  publifhed  has  appeared  fatis- 
fadory.  He  obferves  that  this  diftindion  or  rather 
reparation  of  the  Portugueze  from  the  other  Jews  is 
odious,  but  that  he  is  not  accountable  for  it :  That  he 
is  in  this  part  merely  an  hiftorian,  and  a  faithful  one  : 
and  that,  after  all,  this  conftitution  of  things^  of  which 
he  is  not  the  founder,  has  produced,  up  to  this  time, 
very  good  effedts. 

He  juftifies  his  intentions  and  proves  by  the 
grounds,  the  progrefs  and  even  the  text  of  thefe  re- 
flexions, that  whilil  he  does  the  Portugueze  that  ju- 
ftice  which  they  deferve,  by  diftinguifhing  them 
from  their  brethren,  he  neverthelefs  comprehends  in 

(l)  Sciences.  It  Cannot  be  denied  that  the  Jews  have  had  the  advantage 
of  having  had  very  learned  men  aniono;  tkem. 

(z)  Ecclefiaftical  States.  W<  niiift  allow  this  in  jtiftice  to  the  head  oftlie 
Roman  Catholic  religion,  that  there  is  no  country  in  the  wnrUl  in  which  lefs 
Jewifh  blood  has  fiown,  and  in  which  the  laws  of  liumanity  have  been  more 
refpeded  v^'ith  regard  to  our  nation,  than  the  Ecclcfiaftical  date.  Altho'  we 
do  riot  enjoy  there  that  liberty  and  thofe  privileges  whi.ii  we  have  in  other 
countries,  yet  we  do  not,  nor  never  did,  endure  thofe  cruel  perfecutionjy, 
which  we  have  io  often  eiperienced  in  othtr  places.     Edit . 


4S  Letters     OF 

his  apology  all  the  Jews,  ancient  and  modern,  and 
that  fo  far  from  having  loaded  the  Germans  and 
Poles  with  the  calumnies  which  have  been  laid  upon 
the  whole  nation,  he  has  pleaded  their  caufe  not  on- 
ly with  impartiality,  but  alfo  with  warmth  and  zeal. 
'  "  Thus  fays  he,  after  a  fhort  analyfis  ofthereflex- 
"  ions,  I  have  defended  the  Jews  in  general,  and  con- 
*' futed  the  ra/h  judgments  that  have  been  paiTed  on 
"  them  :  Had  I  been  a  profeiTed  author  I  would  have 
•**  produced  an  hundred  proofs  in  favour  of  my  caufe  : 
"  r  would  have  {hewn  that  in  every  age  the  greateft 
"  men  have  made  the  groffefl  miftakes  in  fpeaking  of 
thofe  who  profelfed  a  tolerated  religion,  which  was 
very  different  from  the  eftabliflied.  The  primitive 
*'  Chriftians  certainly  led  auftere  lives,  they  pradifed 
the  moral  virtues  in  the  (i)  highefl:  degree,  they 
were  certainly  neither  intolerant  nor  perfecutors: 
(2)  Yet  Tacitus  fpeaks  of  them  in  terms  as  inde- 
cent as  they  are  falfe  and  calumnious  :  Pliny,  the 
the  friend  and  cotemporary  of  Tacitus,  treats  thqm 
with  more  moderation,  and  acknov\^ledges  the  pu- 
rity of  their  morals.  The  telefcopes  of  thefe  anci- 
"  ent  obfervators  were  different :  Every  man  has 
"  his  own.  But  it  feems  that  objeds  are  only  con- 
"  fidcred  in  pro61e  and  fuperficially,  without  going 
*'  to  the  bottom,  when  they  concern  the  profeffors  of 
"  a  religion  different  from  our  own  :  How  many 
*'  modern  Piinvs  and  Tacitufes  are  there  who  have 
"  viewed  the  Jewifh  nation  in  profile  or  in  perfpec- 
*'  dtive  and  have  given  of  it  a  mere  picture  of  imagin- 
«  ation." 

The  author  of  la  BihUothcqne  dcsfctcnrcs,  ^  dcs 
arts,  treats  the  apology  flill  more  favourably.  His 
criticifm  is  lefs  fevere  and  his  encomiums  are  ftill 
greater.  "  Thi<;  work,  he  fays,  is  written  with 
"  much  wit  and  art :  It  is  written  politely  too,  and 
*'  notwithfiianding  the  fmall  fcope  which  the  author 
"  has  taken  to   defend  his   nation,  which  in  many 

(l)   H!:rLefi  u'i\[rrte.     Th's  confenion  of  a  JewUTi  aistlior  is  a    prnof  of  his 
probity:   i'onis  Chridian  writers  !iave  ma  nifcfted  more  partiality.     Chrij}. 
(3)  Tct  'Ttidtus.     See  Aniia's  XV,  Ch.  44.    ■^■"t- 


cc 

(C 

<c 

cc 
<e 

iC 


e    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    W    S.  4g 

«<  places  is  mofl  bafely  abufed,  the  apologlfl:  has  been 
«« ingenious  enough  to  comprehend  in  it  a  variety  of 
**  interefting  matters." 

But  this  learned  critick,  whether  it  proceeds  from 
his  want  of  attention,  or  whether  he  formed  his  judg- 
ment on  fome  detached   expreffions,   lays  the  fame 
charge  as  the  EngUfh  critick,  but  with  lefs  bitternefs. 
"  The  witty  Ifraelite,  fays  he,    extols  highly  his 
"  Portugueze  brethren,   and  is   apt  to  give  up   the 
"  Poles  and  Germans,  excepting  a  fmall  number,  as 
**  a  people  ammg  whom  nature  debafed  and  degraded, 
*^  feems  to  have  no  acquaintance    with  any   thing   but 
"  worldly  want.     This  is  a  fharp   expreffion  and  of 
"  piercing  energy,    faUing  from  the  pen  of  the  mofl 
"  polite  jew  that  ever  attempted  an  apology  far   his 
"  nation. 

*'  It  muft  however  be  allowed,  fays  he,   fpeaking 
"  of  Mr.  Voltaire,  that  the  celebrated  author  of  the 
"  general  hiftory  of  the  manner  and  fpirit  of  nations, 
*'  forgets  that  tone  of  humanity  and  good  will  whicU 
*'  is  fo  often  the  richeft  ornament  of  his   works,  in 
"  what  he  fays  without  any  exception  of  the  charac- 
"  ter  of  the  Jews,  that  they  are  an  ignora^it  and  barba- 
"  rous  nation^  which  has  joined  for  a  long  time  the  ba- 
^^  Jeft  avarice  to  the  mojl  deteftahle  fuperftition^  and  the 
"  moJl  violent  hatred  for  all  thofe  nations  which  tolcrati 
"  and  enrich  them^  but  yet  that  they  Jiiii/i  not  be  burned. 
''  Ingeneral,  fays  the  critic,  Mr.  Voltaire  has  fliewn 
•"  that  he  was  little  acquainted  with  what   concerns 
"  the  Jewifli  nation,  ancient  or  modern  :  But  let  that 
"  be  as  it  will,  he  could  not  reafonably  be  offended 
"  with  an  anfvver  where  the  apologifl  fcarcely    once 
"  cenfures   him,    without   exprefling   fuch    refped 
"  and  admiration  for  him  as  raife  him  above  all  the 
"  other  writers  of  this  age.     And  agreeably  to  this, 
"  the  author  has  received  from    Mr.    Voltaire   this 
"  candid     declaration,    7 he    lines    of    which     you 
"  complain  are  cruel  and  iinjuji.     This  is   fpeaking 
"  like  a  man  of  honour." 

He  concludeiby   a  firoke  which  I  ought  not  to  o- 


44  L  S  T  T..  g   R.  g     of 

aijt,  3.nd  \vhi(:h  you  will  read  with  fatisfaclioii.  '*  We 
*■'  doubt  not  but  that  Mr.  Voltaire,  whilft  he  is  ma- 
*'  king  reparation  to  the  Jews,  intends  to  apologize  to 
*»'  Ghriftians  for  feme  other  things  that  have  efcap- 
"-  ed  him  concerning  this  unhappy    nation.    Every 

one  does   not  think  with  the  apologift,  that  Mr. 

"Voltaire  has  proved  the  following  point,  That  it  is 

as.  unjull  to  make  the  modern  Jews  anfwerable  for 
"  the  death  of  Chrifl,  as  it  would  be  to  condemn  the 
"  modern  Romans  for  the  rape  of  the  Sabines,  or  for 
"  plundering  the  Samnites." 

Thefe,  fir,  are  the  opinions  that  have  been  given 
on  the  work  of  our  apologift.  You  fee  that  they 
coincide  with  your  own  opinion,  and  that,  excepting 
the  charge  of  partiality  v/hich  he  certainly  does  not  de- 
ferve,  they  do  him  honour.  We  hope  that  this  work 
will  be  ufeful,  not  only  to  the  Portugueze  and  Spa- 
nifli  Jews,  but  to  the  Jews  in  general,  in  opening 
the  eyes  of  the  feveral  powers  of  the  world  :  And 
that  it  will  contribute,  if  not  to  eradicate,  yet  at  lead 
to  weaken  the  antipathy  and  hatred,  which  private  in- 
tereft  and  falfe  policy,  rather  than  the  juft  and  pure  te- 
nets of  true  .chriftianity  keep  up  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
As  you  breathe  this  fpirit,  fir,  you  lament  the  mi- 
feries  of  our  nation,  whilft  you  condemn  the  crimes  of 
fome  individuals,  and  the  religious  errors  of  the  com- 
munity. We  have  been  long  perfuaded  that  we 
fhall  always  find  more  protection  and  humanity  a- 
mong  true  Chriftians  than  among  the  greateft  part  of 
the  Ueifts,  notwithftanding  their  pretended  imivcr/al 
Toleration. 

You  are  certainly,  as  well  as  the  author  of  the  Bib- 
liotbeqiie  and  the  publick,  in  expeftation  that  Mr. 
Voltaire  will  foon  retraft,  or  at  leaft  foften,  what  he 
has  alledged  againft  us.  You  cannot  fufpeft  that 
after  the  generous  confefTion  he  has  made  of  his  er- 
rors, and  the  promife  he  has  fo  pofitively  given  of  re- 
tracting them,  he  does  not  remain  in  full  intent  of 
infcrting  the  cancel-leaf  he  fpoke  of.     The  new  trads 


CERTAIN     Jews.  4^ 

which  I  now  fend  you,   will  give  you  room  to  judge 
whether  this  is  likely  to  happen.(  i ) 

I  remain,  Revd.  Doctor, 

Yours,  &c. 

(l)  Whether  this  Is  likely  to  happen-  Thofe  tra<fts  were,  the  Sermon  oi  tht 
pretended  Rabin  Akib,  the  ^ueflions  of  Zapata,  the  fhilofaphical  DiHionary,  &c. 
&c.  It  is  well  known  how  the  Jews  are  treated  in  thefe.  Since  Mr.  Vol- 
taire's promife,  he  has  publiflied  nothing  but  what  fpeaks  of  them  in  the 
fame  Stile,  Thus  the  iltuftriousautlior  has  mad«  reparation  for  his  faul^, 
and  kept  his  word  !     £Jit. 


4^  Letters©  I 

LETTERS 

FROM 

CERTAIN       JEWS. 

OFT  II  E 

GERMAN     and     POLISH    SYNAGOGUE, 

at    Amsterdam, 

To    Mr.  V  O  L  T  A  I  R  E. 

FIRST      PART. 

Containing  fome  Observations  on  a  Note,  Infert- 
eJ  in    the  Treatise  on  Toleration. 

LETTER     L 

Occafion  and  Defign  of  thefe  Letters, 
SIR, 


H  E  Spanlfli  and  Portugueze  Jews  are  not  the 
only  defcendants  of  Abraham,  who  admire  you. 
There  is  among  the  German  and  Polilh  Jews,  at 
A.mllerdam,  a  fociety  of  friends,  who  have  for  a  long 
time  made  their  mofi  pleafmg  (ludy  of  your  works. 

We  are  continually  reading  over  thofe  mafter- 
pieces  of  literature  and  philofophy,  and  flill  with 
new  pleafure.  Your  prodigious  erudition,  the  never- 
failing  refources  of  an  imagination  full  of  the  livelieft 
failles,  that  brilliant  colouring  and  enchanting  (lile 
which  raife  you  indifputably  above  all  the  writers  of 
your  age,  are  not  the  only  charms  we  find  in  your 
works.     We   fee  in  them,  with  yet  greater  fatisfac- 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  47 

tion,  that  abhorrence  of  perfecution  and  thcfe  noble 
principles  of  univerfal  benevolence,  which  are  their 
diftinguiihing  character.  We  foinetim^s  flattered 
Gurfelves  that  thefe  fentiments,  engraven  on  your 
heart  no  doubt,  as  well  as  in  your  writings,  would, 
thro*  your  goodnefs,  have  been  extended  even  unto 
us,  and  that  we  fnould  no  linger  be  the  only  people 
on  earth,  for  whom  your  philofophy  could  have  no 
bowels. 

Still  flattered  by  thefe  hopes,  we  read  over  your 
Treatlfe  on  ToleraUon^  with  that  avidity  which  the  ve- 
ry title  of  it  would  raife  in  men  who  profefs  a  reli- 
gion that  is  not  eitabiifhed  any  where,  and  which  is 
Icarcely  toler^ited  in  moft  countries.  What  was  our 
furprize,  when,  in  a  work  that  announces  c^entlenefs 
and  humanity,  and  whofe  defi,?;n  feems  to  be,  to  bind 
flill  fader  thofe  cords  of  lovi  wliich  (liould  unite  men, 
we  found  you  once  more  treating  our  people,  our  fa- 
cred  writings,  and  every  thing  that  is  dear  to  us,  in 
a  manner  fo  different  from  that  character  of  equity 
and  moderation  you  affunie  !  Could  we  expert  to  find 
fo  much  prejudice  and  fo  much  hatred  againfl  an  un- 
happy people  in  the  works  of  a  philofopher,  who 
paifes  for  the  friend  and  reconciler  of  the  human 
race. 

We  were  ftruck,  efpecially  with  a  long  note,  in- 
ferted  at  the  12th  article,  in  which  you  collect  the 
principal  objeftions  of  fome  modern  writers  againfl 
.the  Pentateuch,  and  where,  by  the  moft  odious  im- 
putations, you  give  over  the  memory  of  our  ancef- 
tors,  to  the  execration  of  all  nations. 

Thefe  obje^is  touch  us  too  nearly,  and  affect  us  too 
ftrongly,  to  let  us  refrain  from  fpeaking.  Defence 
becomes  neceifary  when  the  attacks  are  fo  violent  and 
fo  often  repeated.  It  is  time  that  we  fliould  follow 
the  example  of  our  brethren,  and  be  animated  with 
the  fame  zeal  ;  that  we  fliould  raife  our  feeble  voices 
in  defence  of  our  anceftors,  and  of  thole  facred  writ- 
ings v/hich  they  have  tranfmitted  to  us,  that  we 
Ihould  endeavour,  as  far  as  our  poor  talents  will  per- 


4S  LETTERSOf 

mit,  to  confute  thofe  criticifms  to  which  your  name, 
and  the  illuflirious  names  you  quote,  would  be  too  apt 
to  give  confequence.  With  this  view,  and  laying  a- 
fide  all  prejudice,  we  (hall  proceed  to  difcufs  in  order, 
every  thing  you  have  faid  in  your  (i)  pretended  ufeful 
note.  We  do  this  the  more  willingly,  becaufe  whilft 
we  are  anfwering  you,  we  fhall  at  the  fame  time  an- 
fvver  other  writings,  in  which  the  fame  arguments 
have  been  often  and  tedioufly  repeated. 

You  declare,  fir,  that  you  love  truth.  We  love 
it  too,  and  we  believe  that  we  are  defending  it. 
Might  we  be  fo  happy  as  to  bring  you  acquainted 
with  it  I  At  any  rate  we  fhall  endeavour  to  fpeak  con- 
formably to  it ;  and  we  difavow  before^-han  d ,  every 
thing  that  might  efcape  us,  favouring  of  bitternefs, 
or  too  great  (2)  freedom.  We  know  that  one  of  the 
laws  of  that  code  which  you  defpife,  commands  us  to 
honour  {^^  the  face  of  the  old  ?nan,  and  we  are  fenfible 
that  it  becomes  us  to  refpeft  great  talents,  altho'  we 
cannot  help  condemning  the  abufe  of  them. 

You  will  find  in  our  letters,  neither  the  tafte  nor 
the  elegance  of  our  Portugueze  brethren.  It  is 
fcarcely  poiTible  but  that  Germans,  fettled  among  the 
Dutch,  fhould  fometimes  have  an  harfh  fHle  and 
a  Teutonick  mode  of  expreflion  :  But  we  hope  to 
give  you  in  lieu  of  French  graces  and  elegance,  Ger- 
manick  fmcerity.  Read  us  with  the  fame  indulgence 
wherewith  we  are  in  truth,  &:c.   &c. 

(i)  Your  pteteuJct!  iif-J^il  note.  The  utility  of  thefe  notes  wil!  be  fliewn  in 
tiie  following  letter,  and  how  niach  they  enrich  the  text.     EJit. 

(2)  Too  great  frecdum.  Some  of  the  following  letters  appeared  at  Amfler- 
ilaaiin  I765.  We  did  not  then  know  who  was  the  true  author  of  the  'Trea- 
fUcon  'Toleration,  and  of  the  notes  annexed  to  it.  Mr.  Voltaire  has  fo  often 
uifowned  thofe  works,  wliich  are  niofl  unani'.noufly  afcribed  to  him  :  he  hor- 
i-ous  to  many  names,  he  alTumes  fo  many  forms,  Jew,  Chrillian,  Chaplain, 
Kabbi,  Batcliclor,  Do<5lor,  Uncle,  Nephew,  &c.  that  it  is  eafy  to  be  miflak- 
en.   Qjio  tenciim  "vultus  niuiantcm    ^roica  iiedo>      ^  ut. 

(3)  The  face  of  the  oU  Man.  Bee  l.ev'iticus  19th  chapt.  Thou  feali  rife  nf, 
h?for:  t'-M  haarx  head,  nnd.hottTur  t''c  face  of  I'je  old  man.  This  was  a  wife  Inw, 
imitated  by  the  Spartans,  our  bietliren,  and  ancient  allies,  but  too  much  fur- 
wottca  in  modern  !egifl:ition3.     Edit. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  49 

^  ^'^  LETTER       II. 

The  Note  of  the  Author  of  the  Essay  072  Toleration, 
inferted  at  his  \2th  Article.  It  is  quoted  entire^  and 
luhy.     The  Order  to  be  followed  in  the  Anjiver. 


1 


__  HERE  are  too  many  writers,  fir,  who,  in  or- 
der to  form  an  attack,  or  an  apology  to  greater  ad- 
vantage, make  falfe  quotations  without  fcruple,  alter 
the  text  or  give  it  a  falfe  fenfe,  and  thus  father  argu- 
ments on  authors  which  they  never  drew.  Far  be 
from  us  fuch  odious  practices,  which  are  the  feeble 
and  fcandalous  refources  of  defperate  caufes,  and  ca- 
pable of  giving  a  bad  opinion  of  the  bed.  To  baniih 
the  flightefl:  fufpicion  of  this,  we  refolved  without 
proceeding  any  further,  to^  tranfcribe  entirely  that 
note  which  we  propofed  at  firfl  to  confute.  Thus  it 
runs  in  every  edition  of  your  treatife  that  we  could 
find. 

"  Several  writers  have  rafhly  concluded  from  this 
^'  (i)  paifage,  that  the  chapter  concerning  the  gol- 
*' den  calf,  (which  is  no  other  than  the  god  Apis) 
"  has,  as  well  as  many  other  chapters,  been  added 
"  to  the  books  of  Mofes." 

"  Aben  Ezra  was  the  firfl:  who  undertook  to  prove 

*'  that  the  Pentateuch  was  compiled  in  the   time   of 

"   the  kings,  Volallon,  Colins,  Tindall,  Shaftefou- 

•  *'  ry,  Bolinbrook,    and   (2)  mLiny  other;;,   have   al- 

(l)  nis  Pnja^s.  It  is  the  8th  verfe  of  the  i  Zth  chaj>.  of  Deuteronomy. 
tVh^n  yejball  Le  in  the  land  of  Canaun,  fays  Mofes,  ye  pall  not  da  after  all  ih:: 
thiri'Ts  than  ive  do  here  this  day,  every  man  ivh.itfoe-ver  is  rigljt  in  his  oivn  eyes. 
Wi  cannot  perceive  the  diredt  relation  this  paffage  has  to  the  adoration  oil 
the  goIJen  calf,  nor  the  juftnefs  of  thofe  writers  conclufion.  Therefore  Mr. 
Voltaire  has  perhaps  moi-e  reafon  than  he  thinks,  in  callin;j;  this  conchifi  )n . 
rnjb  And  yet  it  is  tJv.s  conclufion  which  has  brou^liton  tli:it  heap  of  objec- 
tions which  he  has  gathered  and  tacked  to  his  text,  witliout  eniiuirin;^  v/iie- 
ther  they  have  any  relation  to  the  fiibjeA  or  not.     EJlt 

(a)  And  many  others.  The  author  ounht  to  liave  named  them;  lie  would 
have  faved  his  readers  the  tri/ubie  of  gueflinj;  at  them.  Toquote  in  fo  vaj^ns 
a  manner,  is  to  tell  the  reader,  iearch,  if  you  chufe,  and  fmd  if  yifii  caii. 
V/e  had  confidered  whether  thefe  m^my  oih.'ricrii-rs  migiit  be  Spinoza,  Hool)- 
fccs,  la  Pereyre.  Trhe  weight  of  tliefe  authorities  is  greu*  :)  Bvit  periupj  .ve 
are  miftakcf).     EJH. 


$o  Lecteriof 


a 


ledged,  that  in  thofe  ages  men  had  no  other  way  of 
committing  their  thoughts  to  writing,  but  by  en- 
graving them  upon  poHfhed  (tone,  brick,  lead, 
"  or  wood,  and  tell  us  that  in  the  time  of  Mofes, 
"  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians  had  no  other  way 
**  of  writing,  and  that  then  they  could  engrave 
*•  only  in  a  very  abridged  manner,  and  in  hierogly- 
"  phicks,  the  fubftance  of  thofe  things  which  they 
"  thought  worthy  of  being  tranfmitted  to  pofterity 
"  and  couldnever  form  regular  hiftories :  That  it  was 
*'  impoflible  to  engrave  books  of  any  confiderabl  e 
"  bulk  in  the  wildernefs,where  they  were  continually 
"  changing  their  habitation,where  they  had  no  perfon 
"  to  furnilh  them  with  cloathing,  to  make  that 
"  cloathing  for  them,  or  even  to  mend  their  fandals, 
"  and  where  God  was  obliged  to  work  a  miracle 
during  forty  years,  to  preferve  the  garments  of 
his  people  entire  :  They  fay  that  it  is  not  likely 
*'  that  there  fhould  have  been  fo  many  engravers 
*'  among  them,  at  the  time  that  they  were  fo  defici- 
"  ent  in  the  more  neceffary  arts  of  life,  and  could  not 
*'  even  get  bread  made  ;  and  if  we  anfwer  to  this, 
that  the  pillars  of  the  Tabernacle  were  of  brafs, 
and  the  chapiters  of  mafTy  filver,  they  reply,  that 
the  order  for  thefe  was  given  in  the  wildernefs, 
^  but  that  the  execution  of  the  order  vi^as  put  off  to 
happier  times." 

rhey  cannot  conceive  they  fay  how  this  poor 
**  nation  could  ail:  for  a  calf  of  mafiy  gold  to  be 
erected  for  their  adoration,  at  the  foot  of  that  very 
"  mountain  where  God  was  then  converfmg  with 
"  Mofes,  and  in  the  midfl  of  the  thunder  and  liglitning, 
''  and  the  found  of  the  heavenly  trumpet  which  were 
"  then  heard  and  feen.  They  are  aftonifhed  that  it 
"  fnould  have  been  onlv  the  day  before  Mofes  defccnd- 
'•  ed  from  the  mountain,  that  all  this  people  fhould 
have  applied  to  Aaron  to  get  this  calf  of  maffy  gold. 
How  fnould  Aaron  call  fuch  an  image  in  one  day  ? 
Hov/  could  Mofes  afterwards  reduce  it  into  pow- 
der ?  They  fay  that  it  is  impofTible  for  any  artifl 
•  to  make  a  {latueof  gold  in  lefs  than  three  months  ; 


c: 


a 
cc 


CERTAIN       J,E   W    S.  51 

*^  and  that  all  the  efforts  of  chymiftry  are  not  fuffici- 
ent  to  reduce  it  into  potable  powder  ;  confequently 
that  the  prevarication  of  Aaron,  and  this  operation 
*'  of  Mofes,  muit  have  been  two  miracles. 

"  Deceived  by  the  humanity  and  goodnefs  of  their 
'*  hearts,  they  cannot  believe  that  Mofes  llaughtered 
"  three  and  twenty  thoufand  fouls  to  expiate  this 
*'  crime  :  Or  that  fo  many  men  would  have  tamely 
*'  fuffered  themfelves  to  be  murdered  by  Leviter, 
*'  without  a  third  miracle.  Laflly,  they  think  it  very 
^'  extraordinary,  that  Aaron,  who  was  the  mofl  guil- 
"  ty  of  all,  lliould  have  been  rewarded  for  that  very 
"  crime,  for  which  the  reft  underwent  fo  dreadful  a 
punifliment,  by  bdng  appointed  high-prieft,  whilft 
the  bloody  remains  of  his  three  and  twenty  thou- 
fand brethren,  v/ere  heaped  at  the  foot  of  that  al- 
tar, on  which  he  was  going  to  facrifice. 

They  ftart  the  fame  difficulties  upon  the  twenty- 
four  thoufand  Ifraehtes  who  were  flaughtered  by 
order  of  Mofes,  to  atone  for  the  crime  of  a  fingle 
one  of  them,  who  was  furprized  with  a  Madianite 
*'  woman.  And  feeing  that  Solomon,  and  fo  many 
**  other  Jewifli  kings,  did  without  being  punifiied  for 
it,  take  to  themfelves  ftrange  wives,  they  cannot 
conceive  what  great  crime  there  could  be  in  an  in- 
*'  dividual  making  an  alliance  with  a  Madianite  wo- 
*'  man.  Ruth  was  a  Moabitefs,  tho'  her  family  was 
originally  of  Bethlehem;  the  fcripture  always 
*'  ftiles  her,  Ruth  the  Moabitefs  ;  and  yet  flie  went 
"  and  put  herfelf  in  the  bed  of  Bcoz,  by  her  mo- 
"  ther's  advice,  received  fix  meafures  of  barley 
*'  from  him,  married  him  after,  and  was  the  gran.di 
*'  mother  of  David.  Rahab  was  not  only  a  ftranger 
*'  but  a  common  proftitute  :  The  Vulgate  gives  her 
"  no  other  title,  but  that  of  Meretr'm  :  fhc  married 
*'  Salmon,  frorn  whom  alfo  David  defcended  :  This 
"  very  Rahab  is  looked  on  a?  a  figure  of  the  ChrKHan 
"  church,  according  to  many  of  the  fathers, 
**  and  efpecially  Origen,  in  his  feventh  Homilv  on 
««  Jofhua. 


(C 

it. 


C( 


5^ 


Letters     of 


*'  BetbOiabe  the  wife  of  Uriah,  by  whom  David 

had   Solomon,   was  an  Ethean.     If  we  go  farther 

back,    the  patriarch  Juda  married  a  Canaanitefs : 

His  children   had  for  wife,  Tamar,  of  the  race  of 

Aram  :  This  woman,  with  whom  Juda  committed 

an   innocent  inceft,  was  not  of  the  race  of  Ilrael. 

"  Thus  our  Saviour  Jefus   Chrift   vouchfafes   to 

take  upon   him  human    flefli,  in  a  family    which 

*'  had  five  aliens  for  its    flock,    in    order    to    fhew 

'  that  the  Gentiles  were  to  partake  of  his   inheri- 

'  tance. 

"  The  Rabbin  Aben  Ezra,  was  (as  we  havefaid) 
'  the  fiifl  who  ventured  to  affirm  that  the  Penta- 
'  teuch,  was  compiled  a  long  time  after  Mofes.  He 
'  quotes  for  authority  feveral  pafTages  ;  The  Canu" 
'.  aniie  ihen  dueli  in  that  land.  1  he  wounioin  of 
'  Moria,  called  the  mountain  of  God,  The  bed  of 
'  O?,  King  of  Bafan,  is  fiill  to  be  feen  in  Rabath. 
«  And  he  called' all  the  country  of  Bafan,  the  villages 
'   9fy^^^'>  ^'^^'^  ^^^'^^  ^^J'     i^e'i^er  was  there  feen  apro- 

•  phct  in  Ifrael  like  Mofes.  Thefe  are  the  kings  which 
'  reigned  in  Edoju  before  any  king  reigned  over  IfraeL 
'  He  pretends  that  thofe  paflages  which  fpeak  of 
'  things  that  happened  after  the  time  of  Mofes,  could 

•  not  be  written  by  Mofes.  To  this  it  is  anfwered, 
'  that  thefe  palfages    are   notes,    added  long  after- 

•  wards  by  tranfcribers. 

"  Newton,  whofe  name  ought  always  to  be  pro- 
'  nounced  with  refpeft,  but  who  as  a  man  may 
'  have  erred,  in  the  introduftion  to  his  commen- 
'  tarics  upon  Daniel  and  St.  John,  afcribes  the  five 
'  books  of  Mofes,  Jofhua,  and  Judges,  to  facred 
'  writers  of  much  later  date.  He  founds  his  opi- 
«  nion  on  the  36th  chap,  of  Genefis,  the  17th,  i8th, 
«    19th,  and  2ifl  verfes,  of  the  4th  chap,  of  Judges, 

•  the  8th  chap.,  of  Samuel,  the  2d  chap,  of  the  ift 
'  book  of  Chronicles,  and  the  4th  chap,  of  Ruth. 
"•  And  indeed  as  in  the  36th  chap,  of  Genefis, 
'  mention  is  made  of  the  kings,  and  in  the  books 
'  of  the  Judges  j  as  David  is  fpoken  of  in  the  book 


ii 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    \V    S.  5^ 

"  of  Ruth  it  fhould  feem  that  all  thefe  books  were 
compiled  in  the  time  of  the  kings,  Tiiis  is  aho  the 
opinion  of  feveral  divines,  at  the  head  of  whom  is 
"  the  famous  le  Cderc  :  But  this  opiHion  has  but  a 
"  fmall  number  of  followers,  who  have  curiofity 
"  enough  to  found  thefe  depths.  1  his  curiofity 
"  makes  certainly  no  part  of  the  duties  of  man. 
"  When  the  learned  and  unlearned,  the  prince  and 
"  the  fhepherd  fhall,  after  this  fliort  life,  appear  before 
"  the  mailer  of  eternity,  every  one  of  us  then, 
"  will  wifh  to  have  been  generous  and  humane,  ge- 
"  nerous  and  compaffionate  :  And  no  one  will  pride 
*'  himfelf  in  having  known  exactly  the  year  in  which 
"  the  Pentateuch  was  written,  or  in  havin'T  been 
"  able  to  diftinguifh  the  true  text  from  the  notes,  in 
"  ufe  a  among  the  fcribes.  God  will  not  afk  us,  whc- 
<'  ther  we  have  taken  part  with  the  Mazorites  a- 
''^  gainfl  the  Talmud  ;  v/hether  we  ever  miftook  a 
*'  Caph  for  a  Beth^  a  Tod  for  a  Vau,  a  Dalcth  for  a 
*'  RcJJj  :  He  will  judge  us  according  to  our  works, 
"  and  not  according  to  our  proficiency  in  the  Hebrew 
"  language.  Therefore,  agreeably  to  the  reafonable 
"  duty  of  a  Chridian,  we  fhall  firmly  abide  by  the 
"  decifion  of  the  church." 

"  Let  us  finifh  this  note  by  a  paffige  of  Leviticu% 
"  a  book  which  was  compofed  after  the  adoration 
"  of  the  golden  calf.  He  commands  the  Jews  no 
"  more  to  adore  the  hairy  things,  the  he-  goats,  with 
'*  whom  they  have  coiiimitted  infamous  abomination. 
"  We  cannot  fay  whether  this  flrange  worfliip  came 
'*  from  Egypt,  the  native  foil  of  forcery  and  fuperfli- 
"  tion,  but  there  is  reafon  to  believe,  that  the  cui'lom 
"  of  our  pretended  magicians,  of  keeping  a  fabbath 
"  for  the  adoration  of  a  he-o^oat,  and  of  abandoninji- 
"  themfelves  to  fuch  deteflable  uncleannefs  as  is 
"  fhocking  to  conceive,  came  from  the  ancient  Jews, 
"  who  were  the  firfl  who  taught  magick  in  a  part  of 
'*  Europe.  What  a  people!  Such  Itrange  abomina- 
''  tions  feem  to  deferve  a  punifliment  equal  to  that, 
'*  v/hich  the  golden  calf  drev/  down  upon  them  : 
*'   And  vet  the  le:iiflator  is  fatisfied,  with  riven  tbeni 

H  "^ 


j4  L    Z    T    T    E    R   -S       O    f 

*'  a  fitr.ple prohibition.     This  fadt  was  brought  in. 

*•  only  to  fliew  what  the    Jewifh  nation  was  :   BeftiO 

"  ality  mull  have  been  very  common  amongft  them, ! 

*'  fince  it  w^as  the  only  nation  known  in  which  the 
laws  were  obliged  to  prohibit  a  crime,  which  was 
not   even   fufpedted   in  any   other   place  by  any„ 


"  other  legillator. 


"  It  is  probable  that  in  the  fatigues  and  diftrefles 
*'  which  the  Jews  underwent  in  the  deferts  of  Paran^^ 
"  Oreb,  and  Cadelh  Barnea,  the  female  fcx," 
"  which  is  always  weaker  than  the  male,  failed. 
"  The  Jews  muft  neceflarily  have  wanted  women, 
"  fmce  they  are  always  commanded,  when  ihey  take 
"  any  town  cr  village,  to  the  right  or  the  left  of  the 
"  lake  Afphaltes,  to  kill  every  thing  except  marriage- 
"   able  women. 

**  The  Arabs,  who  ftill  Inhabit  a  part  of  thofe  de- 
''  ferts,   to    this    day  flipulate  in  the  treaties  v.hich 
'*  they  make  with  the  Caravans,   that  they  fiiall  be^ 
"  fupplisd  with  marriageable  women.     It  is  probable'" 
*'  that  young   people,  in  thofe   fhocking  countries, 
"   corrupted    human    nature  fo  far,  as  to  have  had 
carnal  commerce  with  goats,  as  the  ftory  is  told 
us  of  fome  ihepherds  in  Calabria. 
"  It  is  (till  uncertain,  whether  any  monfters  were 
produced  by  this  unnatural  copulation,  and   whe- 
ther there  is  any  foundation  in  the  ancient  (lories 
of  fauns,  fatyrs,  centaurs,  and   minataurs  ;    hif- 
tory  fays  there  is,  but    natural  philofophy  has  not 
yet  cleared  up  this  monftrous  account.'* 
You  fee,  fir,  that  we  do  not  intend  to  weaken  your 
difficulties  ;  we  quote  them  fully,  and  in  your   own 
M'ords.     When  a  man's  object  is  truth,  he  needs  not 
have  recourfe  to  art. 

In  order  to  anfwer  methodicallv,  we  fhall  confider 
firtt,  upon  what.foundation  the  criticks  you  mention 
maintain,  as  you  fay,  that  Mofes  could  not  be  the 
author  of  (i)  the  Pentateuch.     To  this  we  fliall  add 

(l)  '"!  If  Pcntaieircb.  Mr.  Voltairs  fays,  in  the  text  of  the  treatifir  on  tok- 
ruiioll,  that  it  i.t  very  nceJIeft  to  Ceiifuk  tljofe  iL'bo  thtirt,  tlut  tht  Peui^tlouch  iraj 
/.'rf  -.vr'itcn  I'y  M»/>-i.  Biit  it  is  nccdlcfs  to  confute  them,  what  ufe  could  there 
bi-  in  fillii';;  up  his  note  with  their  iihit'<flion«  ?  T»  (hew  tht  difEcultics,  and 
conceal  tJiC  asifwcis,  is  not  ading  with  honour,     ^ut. 


a 


«    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    W    S.  55 

fome  reflexions  on  different  parts  of  your  other  works, 
where  you  contradi6t  your  criricks  and  yourfeif,  with 
regard  to  the  charafters  and  fubflances  which  were 
ufed  for  writing  in  the  time  of  the  Jewifh  legiflator. 

We  fhall  go  from  thence  to  the  facts  which  your 
criticks  call  in  queftion,  and  fhall  examine  whether 
the  adoration  of  the  golden  calf,  the  conflruction  of 
the  tabernacle  near  mount  Sinai,  and  the  maflacre  of 
twenty-four  thoufand  men,  feduced  by  the  women 
of  Moab,  can  be  looked  on  only  as  abfurd  Jlorics, 
which  have  been  added  to  the  books  of  Mofes. 

We  fhall  enquire  thirdly,  into  the  credit  of  thofe 
authorities  by  which,  you  fupport  your  caufe,  and 
whether  it  be  true,  that  all  thofe  learned  men  you 
mention,  have  maintained  thofe  opinions  and  argu- 
ments (i)  you  afcribeto  them. 

This,  fir,  is  the  plan  which  we  have  laid  down  for 
ourfelves,  and  the  plan  which  we  intend  to  follow  in 
the  fir  ft  part  of  our  letters.  Weigh  our  arguments, 
and  if  you  find  them  convincing,  as  we  hope,  correal 
in  your  new  edition  the  errors  which  have  efcaped  you, 
with  refpeft  to  thefe  ditlerent  objects.  Give  the  pub- 
lic this  proof  that  you  love  the  truths  and  that  (as  you 
fay)  you  prefer  it  to  all  things.  We  are,  wirh  that  re- 
gard and  admiration,  which  your  talents  deferve,  he, 

(l)  Vou  arcribe  to  tbem.  Lord  preferve  u»  from  doubting  Mr.  Voltaire's 
jiiicerity  !  We  only  think  that  in  compiling  thofe  ohjedions  he  may 
have  confounded  the  names  uf  the  authors  front  whom  he  was    co»vinz 


58 


Letters     of 
LETTER     in. 


IVbether  it  iva.s  impoffible  for  Mofes  tQ  ivrite  the  Penta- 
teuch. ExaminatiGii  of  the  Reafons  alledged  in  the 
( 1 )  Bote, 

J.Fj  in  fpeaking  of  the  Pentateuch,  Collins,  Tin- 
dall,  and  others,  had  been  Tatisfied  with  advancing 
that  this  work,  fuch  as  v/e  have  it,  is  not  entirely  of 
Mofes  ;  that  many  places  may  be  obferved  in  it  which 
feem  to  have  been  added  by  more  recent  hands  ;  or 
even  that  thefe  books  were  not  compiled  'till  after  the 
Jegiflator's  death,  by  the  help  of  regular  tradition  and 
aiuhentick  memorials  :  They  would  have  faid  no 
more  than  what  many  learned  men,  both  Jews  and 
Chridians,  have  believed  ;  yet  this  belief  never  inva- 
lidated the  orthodoxy  of  thofe  books,  either  in  our 
fynagogue,  or' your  (2)  church. 

But  your  (3)  wTiters,  fir,  do  not  confine  them- 
felves  within  thefe  limits :  Thefe  bold  criticks  at- 
tempt to  prove  not  only  that  Mofes  was  not  the  au- 
thor of  the  Pentateuch,  but  that  it  was  impojfiblefor 
him  to  ivrite  it  in  the  circumjiances  he  was  in» 

(i)  /UcJged  in  the  vote.  It  is  rot  cTir  intent  here  to  prove  that  Mofes 
was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  :  Many  others  have  done  it,  and  in  a  con- 
vincing manner.  See  what  Abhadie,  Dupin,  and  ethers,  have  faid  on  this 
fubjedt.  We  fuppofe  this  point  proved,  and  we  confine  ourfelves  merely  to 
anfwer  the  dlfliculties  propofed  in  the  note.     Aut. 

(z)  Vour  church.  That  Mofcs  wrote  the  Pentateuch  is  a  fai5l,  fupported 
by  luch  folid  proofs,  that  no  reafonable  perf»n  can  doubt  it  :  And  yet  it  is 
not  an  art  cle  of  faith.  Therefore  the  celebrated  author  of  the  philofophical 
d.iflionary,  that  famous  book,  is  miftakcn,  when  he  fays  (in  the  article, 
Mdfcs)  that  the  church  has  decided  that  the  Ventateuch  tvas  -written  by  the  Uginato'r .  ' 
The  Itan.ed  Chriflian  is  but  ill-informed  in  the  article  of  his  religion.  Muft 
Jews  be  obliged  to  inftruift  him  in  it  ? 

Whether  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  Mofes,  in  the  form  in  which  wc 
have  It  now,  or  whether  fucccedinjr  prophets  have  added  fhort  notes  to  it. 
&c.  &c.  thefe  are  merely  critical  difquifitiosis,  whi-h  affe<n  not  the  grounds 
or  rthgion  Ihefadls  ^^hlch  lupport  the  truth  of  this  revelation,  drawn 
from  authcntick  memorials,  fnpported  by  a  tradition,  which  goes  back  as  far 
as  the  origin  of  the  Jewifh  ration,  engraved  in  indelible  char.flers  in  their 
c.v.l  and  rehg.cus  rites  :  Thefe  fa^s,  I  fay,  are  not  the  lefs  clear  alW  incon- 
tcitihle,  notwithftandiiig  thi«  dfiubt.      Aut. 

(.3)  W  zuritcrs.  We  (hall  Hiew  hereaficr  who  arc  the  writers  whofc  au. 
thonty  Mr.  Voltaire  can  challenge.     £d:t. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  57 

The  nature  oi  thofe  fubftances  on  which  they  en- 
graved their  compofitions  at  that  time  ;  the  charac- 
ters ufed  in  writing,  laftly,  the  Itate  of  mifery  of  the 
Jews  in  the  wildernefs.  Thefe  are  the  three  reafons, 
Tir,  which  they  aliedge.     Let  us  enquire  into  their 

folidity. 

§  I.  Vihethcr  the  nature  of  thofe  fubjlances^  on  ivhich 
they  engraved  ivriting  in  the  time  of  Mofes^  could  pre- 
vent   him  frojn  ivriting  the  Pentateuch. 

In  thofe  ages  men  had  no  other  way  of  committing  their 
thoughts  to  writings  but  by  engraving  them  upon  polifhcd 
fione^     brick ^    lead,  or  wood,  fay   thefe  cri ticks,  and 
in  the  time  of  Mofes  the  Egyptians  and  Chaldeans  had 
no  other   way    of  writing.     Therefore    Mofes  could 
not  write  the  five  books  which  are  afcribed  to  him 
Do  you  call   this    found    reafoning,  fir  ?  As  for 
our  parts,  we  can  fee  nothing  in  it  but  a  conclufion 
ill-drawn  from    a  very    uncertain   principle  :    The 
principle  is   uncertain,  for   what  proofs   can   thefe 
criticks  give  of  it  ?  Have  they  fecret  memoirs  which 
they  have  read,  and  to  which  the  whole  body  of  the 
learned  are  ftrangers  ?  , 

Men    had  then  no  other  way   of  committing  their 
thoughts  to  writing,  but  by  engraving  them  upon  polifl:)ed 
Jione,  Is'c.   iffc.     Where   men  at  that  time  ignorant 
or  negleftful  of  the  art  of  painting  their  thoughts  ? 
What  !  Had  they  already  invented  tools  of  brafs  or 
fleel  to   engrave  their  thoughts,  altho'  in  order  to 
.  forge  iron,  or  tofiipply  fomething   in  lieu  of  it  (i),  ac- 
cording to  you,  Jo  many  lucky  chances  mujl  have  met, 
fo  much  indujlry,  fo  many  ages,  that  it  is   hard  to  con- 
ceive how  men  at  lafl  accomplijloed  it  :  And  they  had  not 
yet  found  out  colours  for  painting  their  conceptions, 
which  nature  continually  throws  in  their  way  !  i here 
are  amongji  us  Egyptian  mummies  (2)  ^000 years  old  : 

(l)  Aceoriiin^  to  yoti.  See  the  Phihfophy  of  Hifcry,  (Article  CfiaiJeaias  ) 
And  ytt  the  iluflriou':  author  thinks  that  writing  was  engravevl  on  ftoric, 
anJ  on  metals  hcf<)re  it  wascnaiked  or  painted  !  And  it  is  upon  this  prin- 
tiplc  he  grounds  his  opinion  that  it  was  iniooirihle  for  Mofes  to  write  the 
Pentateuch.  Edit. 
(3)     4000  Tcjit  old.  See  ibidem,  article,  of  Egyptian  monutrents.     EJil, 


58  Lettersof 

Are  your  critics  fure  that  none  of  thofe  which  we 
finil  i'urrounded  with  linen  bands,  (lained  with 
painted  hieroglyphicks,  are  of  thofe  times  ? 

A  child  and  a  child  of  no  great  ingenuity^  when  he 
cannot  make  himfelf  underjiood,  will  think  of  delineate 
ing  the  object  he  wants  with  a  coal ;  from  hence  to  the 
invention  of  more  lajiing  colours  there  is  (^i)  but  a  fiep. 
And  did  the  Chaldeans  never  make  this  ftep  ?  This 
(2)  ancient  people,  who  was  fo  learned  that  they 
calculated  ecliples  at  the  time  of  the  flood,  from  that 
time  until  the  days  of  Mofes,  never  could  find  out 
what  the  Chineie  and  the  Mexicans  found  out  in  the 
infancy  of  their  empire,  what  the  favages  of  America 
have  been  acquainted  with,  in  fliort,  what  would" 
come  into  the  mind  of  a  child  ? 

Even  fuppofmg  that  men  did  not  yet  knotv  the  ufe 
of  colours  for  v/riting,  or  did  not  praftife  it,  by 
v/hat  authority  do  thofe  criticks  confine  the  fub- 
ftances  on  which  writing  might  be  engraved,to  ftone, 
wood,  or  metals  ?  What  reafon  have  they  to  doiibt 
that  in  Egypt  it  was  engraved  on  the  infide  bark  of 
certain  trees  ?  And  upon  the  leaves  of  the  palm- 
tree  ?  As  has  been  long  pradifed  in  the  Indies  and  in 
China. 

But  'tis  too  little  to  fay  that  their  principle  is  un- 
certain, I  fliall  add  that  the  contrary  is  no  way  doubt- 
ful ;  and  it  is  not  I,  but  the  learned  count  de  Cay- 
lus  who  will  inform  you. 

fi)  But  a  f-f-  See  Phihfuphy  of  Hifary,  Article  of  the  langnage  of 
the  Eiiyptians  anil  of  their  fynibols.     Edit. 

(2)  Anc'unt  people  -who  ivas  f9  learned.  In  the  Philojopliy  of  Hiftttry,  (Ar- 
ticle, Chaklcaiij)  Mr.  Vo  fairs  ft  niggle  3  to  prove  that  the  antiquity  of 
this  perple  went  farther  back  than  the  flood  :  He  almoft  adopts  the  calcula- 
latlon  of  470,000  years  which  they  gave  thcmfelves.  But  is  it  not  evident 
t!«at  the  farther  he  thri>ws  back  the  origin  of  theChaldeans,  and  the  anti- 
auity  of  the  neighbouring  people,  the  more  unlikely  it  is  that  thefc  ancient 
nations  had  not  yet  found  out  the  art  of  painting  their  conceptions  in  the 
time  of  Mofcs  ? 

The  illuftrious  author,  in  order  to  giv«  an  high  idea  of  the  learning  and 
antiquity  of  the  Chincfe,  fays,  in  the  fame  work,  that  the  Chinefe  vfed  to  terite 
on  tablets  of  l>anihoo,tvhilft  the  Chahiettni  virote  tn  nothing  iut  brick.  Does  this 
learned  man  tl\ink  tl-.at  hecaufe  the  Chatdcans  knew  how  to  write  on  brick, 
they  therefore  never  nrote  on  any  thing  eif«  ?  Or  that  it  is  eafier  ti>  write 
on  brick  than  upon  tablets  of  baa.boo,  with  the  point  cf  a  bone  or  of  foo^e' 
hard  wood  ?      Edii' 


cc 


CERTAIN     Jews.  5^^ 

"  It  is  clear,  fays  ( i )  he,  that  as  foon  as  writing 
*'  was  found  out,  it  was  laid  on  every  thing  that 
"  could  receive  it.'*  Therefore  the  firfl  writers 
wrote  not  only  on  ftone,  metals,  or  wood,  but  upon 
every  thing  that  could  receive  ivriting.  This  is  the 
didate  of  reafon,  improved  by  an  acquaintance  with 
the  arts,  and  which  no  man  of  good  fenfe  will  deny, 
if  fome  private  intereft  does  not  fway  him  to  main- 
tain the  contrary.  *'  The  fubftances,  adds  the  illuf- 
trious  academician,  have  varied  according  to 
times  and  countries.  It  may  however  be  affirm- 
ed that  the  moft  common  fubftance,  and  the  light- 
"  eft  for  carriage,  claimed  the  preference  in  a  thing 
"  fo  neceffary."  Without  doubt  all  nations  would 
have  preferred  fuch  fubftances.  But  by  a  whim  in- 
conceivable in  any  other  country,  the  Egyptians  and 
Chaldeans,  precifely  in  the  time  of  Mofes,  did  quite 
the  contrary.  This  wife  people  preferred  fubftan- 
ces, fo  uncommon,  fo  hard,  and  fo  difficult  of  car- 
riage, that  it  is  paft  conception,  how  any  work  of 
moderate  length  could  have  been  written  on  them  ! 

But  further,  even  fuppofe  your  principle  as  true 
as  it  is  falfe  :  Suppofe  it  was  an  inconteftible  fact, 
that  in  the  time  of  Mofes,  the  only  manner  of  ivriting 
luas  to  engrave  our  thoughts  on  poliflded  ftone,  brick,  lead 
or  ivood,  would  it  follow  from  this  that  Mofes  could 
not  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  We  allow 
that  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  engrave  it  on  po- 
lifhed  ftone  or  on  burned  bricks  :  But  what  impofli- 
bility  metaphyfical,  phyfical  or  moral,  could  there 
be  in  his  engraving  it  on  foft  brick,  or  if  that  was 
inconvenient,  on  lead,  and  if  lead  failed,  on  wood  ? 

§  II.  Whether  the  charaBers  ufed  in  the  time  of 
Mofes,  could  prevent  him  from  vjriting  the  Pentateuch. 
In  the  tijue  of  Mofes,  fay  thofe  learned  criticks, 
they  had  no  other  way  of  writing  hut  in  hieroglyphichs, 
and  therefore  they  could  only  write  the  fuhftance  of  thofe 
things,  which  they  thought  worthy  of  being  tranfmilled 

(l)  Sjyi  be.    See  the  memoirsof  the  academy  of  bellts  Icttre»,    Aut. 


6o  Lettersof 

1o  pcjlerity  and  could  never  form  regular  hijlories  in  de- 
tail. 

But  firil,  is  it  very  certain  that  in  the  time  of  Mo- 
fes,  the  only  method  of  writinp:  was  hieroglyphical  ? 
The  fiiigularity  of  an  opinion  is  not  a  title  which  dif- 
penfes  the  propofer  from  adducing  proofs  :  Where 
are  the  proofs  of  your  writers  ? 

We  have  fome  proofs  on  the  contrary,  and  I  think 
good  ones,  that  even  the  alphabetical  charaders  were 
known.  Such  are  the  novelty  oi  ycur  opinion,  and 
the  antiquity  of  our*s  :  This  is  a  kind  of  pofl'eilion 
which  is  valid  againft  vague  conjeftures  and  ground- 
lefs  aflertions.  There  is  an  improbability  in  your 
fyflem,  that  Mofes,  who  according  to  you  wrote  at 
leaft  bis  cbief  laws  ?ii\d  the  mofl  interefting  events  in 
the  hiftory  of  his  people,  fliould  have  done  it  in  hi- 
eroglyphicks,  which  are  made  up  moftly  of  the  figures 
of  men  and  animals.  He  according  to  you,  had 
(i)  forbad  the  engraving  any  fgure^  and  muft  as  otlier 
learned  men  fay,  have  knownthat  the  abufe  of  thofe 
characters  had  been  one  of  the  fources  of  Egyptian 
idolatry.  And  lailly,  it  is  improbable  that  charac- 
ters very  different  from  thofe  which  v,fere  employed 
by  the  legiilator  and  confecrared  by  God  himfelf, 
fliould  have  been  fubRituted  in  the  place  of  thefe  lat- 
ter, without  the  lead  trace  of  this  reniarkable  change 
having  been  left,  in  our  writings  or  our  tradition. 

To  thefe  proofs,  which  relate  immediately  to  u?, 
add  the  tcflimony  even  of  prophane  hiilory.  This 
informs  us  that  almoll  all  nations  have  looked  on  the 
invention  of  letters  as  of  the  mod  remote  antiquity  ; 
that  the  Afiyrians  and  Chaldeans  thought  them  as 
ancient  as  their  empire  ;  that  the  Egyptians  pretend- 
ed their  Thor,  or  fome  of  his  children,  were  the  in- 

(l)  IIa:1forhad thc,engra-ving,  ^c.  Sec  the  Philnfophy  of  Hiftory.  Mr. 
Voltaire  gors  f.  ill  fartlier  in  anotlier  jliice,  lie  r.furcs  us  in  ixpids  ttinis 
thii  it  tvi!  f'jrMd.lcn  />>•  tbr  fecor.i  r.iticlc  of  tbi  HcLrcii'  laiv  to  icriie  hi  lUtigly- 
fihhis.  F.iihcr  then",  Moles  did  not  write  his  prjr.-ipal  laws,  which  is  cup.- 
trary  net  only  to  the  united  fiiffrajre*  of  a'l  aiitimiity,  iacrcd  t-iid  prophane, 
bur  a'fo  to  the  very  affirmation  of  Mr,  Voltaire  ;  or  he  wrote  thi  ni  in  al- 
)>l',ahtti:al  charaftc rs,  wlilch  is  a  formal  contradicHon  to  the  oi'inion  i/f  tl^e 
Itdtiuii  nicii  4uottdin  Mr.  Voltaire's  rote.     Edit. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  6t 

ventors  of  them  ;  tbey,  fays  the  celebrated  (i)  War- 
burton,  who  never  afcribcd  the  invention  of  any  thing 
to  their  Gods  ofivhich  they  knew  the  origin  ;  that  thefe 
people,  ill  all  whofe  fciencss  Mofes  v/as  inftrutled, 
had  a  political  and  a  facerdotal  alphabet,  even  in  the 
times  of  their  ancient  kings  ;  that  Cecrops  and  Cad- 
mus, one  of  whom  is  fuppofed  to  have  lived  before 
the  Jev/iih  legiilator,  and  the  other  to  have  been  his 
cotemporary,  conveyed  even  then  the  knov/ledge  of 
alphabetical  charafters  into  Greece,  he.  &c. 

All  thofe  traditions  concerning  the  anliquity  of 
letters,  traditions  fo  ancient,  fo  univerfal,  and  which 
agree  fo  \Jt\\  with  our  facred  writings,  mu'l  certain- 
ly have  had  fonie  foundation,  and  deferve  fome  cre- 
dit, if  not  in  every  minute  particular,  yet  in  fub- 
ftance.  Even  the  uncertainty  and  variety  of  opini- 
ons on  this  difcoverv,  and  the  difficultv,  or  rather 
impolfibilitv,  notwichflandinjr  all  the  refearches  of 
theiearned^  of  afligning  a  period  to  it,.  Ihev/  incon- 
teftably  that  it  runs  back  to  the  molt  dillant  ages^ 
Are  not  thefe  reafons,  fir,  plaufible  enough,  againfl 
an  alTertion  v/hich  is  delHtute  of  proofs  ? 

Therefore  it  is  not  certain  that  in  the  time  of  Mo- 
fes, the  only  way  of  writing  was  hieroglyphical. 
We  fliall  noY.'  proceed  to  fliew  that  the  follo\\  ing  point 
is  not  jnore  clear,  viz.  That  with  the  help  of  hicro- 
glyphicks  he  could  not  have  wrote  the  Pentateuch. 

We  Ihall  begin  by  obferving  that  the  charafters 
of  reprefentative  and  hieroglyphical  writing  under- 
went fuccefiively  divers  changes.  Firft,  objeds,  fuch 
as  they  were  {^tw  in  nature,  v/cre  painted  in  a  cium- 
fy  way,  and  this  was  probably  the  firfl  manner  of 
writing  of  the  ancieu^-  Egyptians,  Chaldean?,  Chi- 
nefe,  hz.  &c.  and  this  is  Hill  the  manner  of  fome 
A^merican  nations.  Afterwards  thefe  objects  were 
no  longer  painted  in  full,  they  ju(l  drew  the  contour 
©f  fL>!ne  of  their  princ.'pal  parts.     And  lallly,   tliey 

i 

(x) ''''jr^i-r.'o't.  This  learned  man  maintains  tliat  the  Epypt-'aii  hltrraly- 
•j:h;:U'i  •'*'  a  v.m  hTome  f.icrcJ  til!  al'tci^the  iiiviucior.  oi'  iwltwis,  auJ  that  they 
\>c-c  ra>-"rcd  ia'thc  time;  of  Jolephus.     £.ijt. 


&2  L    E    T    T    £    R    S       O    ? 

conHned  thcmfeives  to  thofe  lines  which  were  the 
^tteit  for  delcribing  thetn.  Such  is  (till  the  writing 
of  the  Chir^efe,  as  the  learned  tell  us  ;  and  it  feems 
to  have  been  that  of  moil  nations,  until,  by  an  hap- 
py effort  of  genius,  men  thought  of  defcribing  no 
longer  theobjefts,  but  the  figns  of  their  conceptions, 
that  is,  the  words  which  recall  them  to  our  minds. 

Let  us  now  fuppofe,  what  you  have  in  no  wife 
proved,  that  Iviofes  really  i:new  none  but  the  hiero- 
glyphical  characters  of  the  hrft  fort,  was  it  impcffi- 
ble  for  him  to  write^  by  the  help  of  them,  fuch  a  hif- 
tory  as  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  an  abridgement, 
and  confined  to  things  neceffary  ?  The  Mexicans  were 
not  acquainted  with  any  other  reprefentative  kind  of 
\yriting  but  the  firll  ;  and  yet  they  had  (i)  their  hif- 
tpry,  which  ran  from  the  time  they  entered  that 
country,,  until  the  Europeans  came  and  conquered 
them,  and  this  hiflory  comprehended  their  lavvS,  the 
regulations  of  their  police,  the  particulars  of  their 
government,  Sec.  kc.  And  why  could  not  the  .He- 
brew legiilatcr  write  fuch  an  hillory  with  the  fame 
characters  ? 

Now  if  it  was  not  impoflible  to  have  regular  hifio- 
ries,  and  of  a  certain  length,  with  the  firft  kind  of 
reprefentative  writing,  was  it  not  ftill  much  lefs  fo 
with  the  fecond  kind,  and  fiill  lefs  again  with  the 
ihh-d  ;  that  is,  the  runninp-  hieroylvchicks  ?  Have 
not  the  Chineie  regular  hillorics  in  detail  ?  And  yet 
their  writing,  as  we  h.ave  (hewn,  is  in  th<2,third  hie- 
roglyphical  manner,  or  comes  very  (2)  near  to  it. 
Now  Vvhat  proofs  can  your  critics  produce  to  wefli 
that  Mofes  did  not  know  ihe  fecond,  or  even  the 
third  kind  of  hleroglyphical  wilang  r 

( X)  TIe:r  I'f.oy^ .  Fiiire  fr-frmt  iits  oftl.-fire  I.ifli>ries  are  fii';  rrfferveH. 
But  tiie  jjrcatcft  pait  of  t'lod-.  j'vri-cious  iiuuuiineiifs  wurtr  elellroycd  Ly  the  cod- 
i^'i''!i;.>;  "  jVi!i;;i;\.i.,  viho  fork  tlu'iii  lor  book*  <  f  niiijjic.  Sec  liic  ruciiioJrs- of 
tiie  aciiiicjiiy  cf  bcilt*  i»;itrts.     ^  i:t. 

(l"!  Or  comfs  very  nea  r  tc  it-  Set  i' hi.  a  vet  y  Itariicd  trcstin;  of  Mr.  de 
Gu-jjues,    on  the  Wi.ting  tl"  ti.;-  CiiinLrc.     laciti. 


CERTAIN     Jew  s.  63' 

Therefore,  even  fuppoting*  that  in  the  time  of  Mo- 
les hieroglyphical  charaders  were  ufed,  and  alphabe- 
tical ones  unknown,  it  was  not  impoflible  for  him  to 
•write  the  Pentateuch. 

In  fjiort,  fir,  no  matter  what  chara(fv:ers  they  ufed, 
or  what  fubdances  they  wrote  on,  by  your  own  ac- 
count (in  ihj  defence  of  my  uncle)  "  every  nation  of 
"  Paleiiine  had  its  particular  hifi:ory,  when  the  Jews 
"  went  into  that  country."  And  why  then  coukl 
not  Tvlofes  have  v/rote  his  hiftory  in  the  fpace  of  forly 
•  years  ? 

§  3.  Vihcthcr  the  fcate  of  the  Jfraeliies^  in  the  ivil- 
dcrnefs^  could  ha^^e  -prcyented  Mofes  from  luriting  the 
Pc  fit  J  tench  ? 

Here  your  critics  triumph  !  It  was  impoiTible,  fay 
they,  to  engra've  large  books  in  the  ivildernefs ,  ivhsro 
there  ii)as  a  want  of  every  things   i^c.   ts'c. 

Yes,  large  books ;  books  of  twelve  or  fifteen  vo- 
lumes in  foiio,  fuch  as  we  fee  in  libraries,  the  Kncy- 
clopedie,  for  indance,  or  fome  other  \vork  of  like 
bulk.  But  in  comparifon  of  thii,  fir,  the  Penta- 
teuch is  a  fmali  book. 

Why  do  I  fay  the  Pentateuch  ?  It  would  be  proper, 
perhaps,  to  except  the  whole  book  of  Geneiis,  for 
you  are  not  certain  that  Mofes  did  not  write  it  be- 
fore he  left  Egypt.  At  lead  Deuteronomy  mud  be 
excepted,  which  w'as  not  written  in  the  (i)  vv^ilder- 
nef-J. 

•  You  fay  (^2)  Somewhere,  that  Jcfliua  caufed  this 
lad  book  to  be  engraved  on  done.  NowDeuteronomy 
is  about  the  fifth  part  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  why  could 
not  Mofes  get  the  remainder  of  it  engraved  in  the 
fame  manner  ?  The  whole  difficulty  confided  in  lay- 
ing out  on  it  quadruple  the  fpace  of  time. 

(t)  In  the  •w'lldernefs .  It  may  He  fuppofed  that  Deuteronomy,  cxcf pt  tlic 
lad  chapter,  was  written  by  Moles  a  fhort  time  before  his  death,  near  the 
biK-dcTsof  the  Jordan,  a  fertile;  wcll-iiiiiabitcd  country,  where  sftk.rwar.is  two 
tribes  au'i  an  hilt"  cliufe  to  take  up  tiu'ir  rcfidcnce.      "Tranf. 

(s)  Son:i:o!jer^-.  We  foafon  here  only  from  the  cunceffion  of  Pvlr  V.ii- 
tairc  ;  for  in  reality  it  is  proSai)Ic',  tiut  by  tb:  -rvorih  nf  the  l.i-v  which  Joihua 
caufed  to  beensjravod  on  llono,  wc  arc  now  to  ua-lerllauJ  the  whole  bo.i't  of 
Deuteronoiiiy  but  only  the  two  chapters  of  bi'ji!inj;s  an-.j  curfci  ;  oi-  rerhijis 
the  tea  ;jr.iuiui  Imciiis.     5V.v;.;:'.i .•;%.-.     iJss ^ /..'.'f j-  --i/.i  I^;/i„;-.  •   A-:. 


64  Letters     o  ? 

But,  hy  your  critics,  here  precifely  lies  the  diffi- 
culty :  How  could fo  iiUich  time  be  /pared  in  the  ivil- 
dernefsj  ivhere  they  fo  often  changed  their  divelHngs  ? 
Not  fo  often,  lir,  thefe  changes  are  pretty  well' 
know:},  and  they  were  not  by  many  degrees  fo  fre- 
quent as  you  think.  Ihe  courfe  of  the  Ifraelitcs  is 
marked  out  in  the  books  of  Mofes  :  Let  us  give  them, 
ifyoupleafe,  ten  years  to  accomplifli  it.  This  is  a 
great  deal,  and  probably  (i)  too  much.  'Ihere  will 
yet  remain  thirty  years  for  their  refidence.  Do  you 
think  that  in  thirty  years  they  could  not  engrave, 
even  upon  ftone, three  or  four  books  as  fiicrt  as  thofe 
of  the  law  ? 

But  "jjhere  could  ihey  find  fo  many  engravers  in. the 
*ivildernefs,  ivhere  they  had  no  perfon  to  furnifn  them 
'Lvith  cloc^ihingj  to  make  that  cloathing  for  them^  or  even 
io  incnd  their  fandah  ;  ivhere  they  'were  Jo  deficient  in 
the  mojl  neccffary  arts  cf  life ^  and  could  not  even  get 
bread  made. 

So  many  engravers,  fir!  And  were  fo  many' ne- 
celTary  ?  Would  not  a  dozen  fuffice  to  engrave  in 
thirty  years,  and  even  upon  ftone,  and  in  hierogly- 
phicks  three  or  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch?  But 
if  they  were  engraved  only  on  wood,  as  your  writers 
agree  might  have  been  the  cafe,  and  in  alpliabeticai 
charafters,  as  is  very  probable,  how  much  lefs  time 
and  fewer  engravers  \^uld  have  been  required. 

"  hi  a  ivildcrnefs  where  they  mere  deficient  in  the 
*'  mcft  ncceffary  arts^  and  could  not  even  get  (2)  bread 
"  made:'  ^  ■ 

(i)  Ptohah'y  too  vnich.  The  film  total  of  the  different  marches  of  tlic  Ifra- 
eiites,  in  the  wiKleniers,  amounts  to  little  raore  tlian  four  liuiidrcd  and  fifty 
leagues,  which  they  aould  cafily  accomplifli  b/  cal'y  joiiniics  in  Icfs  tl;an  ten 
years.     Aul. 

(a)  Get  htcnd  made.  Achiiire  the  Tilidity  of  the  foltowinjr  ari;umeiit  ; 
•'The  Ifraf  litis  in  the  wilritrnefs,  Gr  wa.it  (f  Ivcad  lived  t'li  niai'na  ; 
"  therefore  they  had"  toil  the  art  of  iiakinjj  :  'i'liey  were  deficient  in  lea' lie  r 
"andfiuffo;  therefore  thty  had  iici'her  Ihoe-ma^ers  nor  tayl'irs  ;  thertfore 
"  they  had  lo(l  their  eiii^iavers,  and  the  art  of  er.priiving  ;  thertfc-re  Mofes 
"  is  not  t'le  author  of  the  Pcoiateuch  "  fs  not  this  reiifoniojj;  f  i  iily  j  hilo- 
fuphical  ?  Siipjvirt  1  fiiii!,"  The  Hebrews,  who  had  no  l-.akcrs  in  the  v/ddcr- 
*' n('.f«,  Inad  prol^ably  no  cooUs ;  therefore  when  (juaiU  fell  info  their  canio, 
"  ihey  fell  ready  roai1ed,(ir  they  cat  th  :m  raw  ;  therefore  they  reaf^ed  A- 
"  R^R.  arid  fed  on  human  fitfli."  Th.s  VTOuid  bo  a  fveble  iinitaiiou  of  ihil 
Bobic  lo^ick.     Aut. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  6^ 

But  why  coulJ  they  not  make  bread  ?  Was  it  be- 
cauic  the  art  of  making  bread  was  loft,  and  that  ba- 
kers were  wanting  ?  Not  at  all,  but  becaufe  meal 
was  wanting.  The  fame  thing  may  be  affirmed  of 
the  other  arts  which  you  mention.  Neither  flioe- 
raakers,  nor  taylors  were  wanting,  but  leather  and 
ftuff.  'Ihat  is,  if  we  fuppofe  they  were  really  want- 
ing. The  materials  had  been  confumed,  but  the 
arts  andartills  remained.  And  why  did  no  engra- 
vers remain,  thefe  fo  neceflary  artifls,  at  lead  accord- 
in'^  to  vour  hypothefis?  There  is  the  lefs  reafon  to 
fuppofe  a  deficiency  of  them,  becaufe  probably  nei- 
ther wood  nor  ftones.  could  be  wanting  for  engrav- 
ing, altho'  ftufi  might  be  wanting  to  make  cloaths, 
and  leather  to  mend  fandals. 

Befides,  if  Mofes  had  no  more  engravers,  how 
could  Jofliua  fmd  any  ?  Do  you  think  that  he 
brought  fomefrom  the  kingdoms  of  Og  and  Sehon, 
or  that  he  fent  the  Ifraelites  to  learn  to  engrave  in 
the  cities  of  liai  and  Jericho  ? 

Oliferve  lalHy  that  the  law,  or  at  leaft,  the 
greateft  part  of  it,  v%'as  written  near  mount  Sinai, 
where  God  gave  it  to  Mofes  in  parts,  ordering  him 
at  each  time,  to  go  and  write  down  the  given  por- 
tion. Nov/  the  Ifraehtes  arrived  at  mount  Sinai, 
forty-eight  days  after  their  going  out  of  Egypt.  Is 
it  probable  that  in  fo  fhort  a  time,  they  loil  all  their 
engravers?  And  if  there  was  a  mortality  atnong  the 
people,  why  do  you  make  it  fall  on  thofe  artifts  in 
particular  ?  "What !  was  there  not  one  or  two  of 
them  left,  who  whilfl  the  Hebrews  fojourned  at  the 
foot  of  this  mountain,  could  have  formed  difciples  ? 
No,  maflers  and  fcholars,  they  mud  all  die  !  Alas, 
fir,  this  is  very  hard,  to  be  obliged  to  kill  fo  many 
men,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  one  difficulty  !  Truft  me, 
let  us  rather  permit  them  to  Hve,  and  let  us  agree  in 
this  point,  that  the  Ifraelites,  in  the  wildernefs  had 
not  loft  their  arts,  nor  their  artifts  ;  this  is  the  moft 
natural  and  probable  fuppofition. 

JMofes  therefore  did  not  want  enc^ravers  of  cha- 


C6  L    £    T     T    £     R     S       O    F 

ra£lers  in  the  wildernefs  :  Nor  did  he  want  flonc, 
wood,  or  time  for  engraving.  Therefore,  even  ac- 
cording to  the  falfe  hypotheies  of  your  uriters,  the 
fojourning  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  wiidernefs,  w-as  not 
an  obff  acle  which  could  prevent  Mofes  from  writing 
the  Pentateuch. 

Thus  fir,  none  of  the  reafons  alledged  by  your  cri- 
tics prove  the  impoifibility  they  pretended  to  demon- 
ftrate.  This  impoflibility  is  a  chimera,  their  princi- 
ples are  falfe  fuppofitions,  and  their  arguments  in- 
conclufive. 

That  we  flrould  find  fuch  arguments  in  (i)  Col- 
lins and  Tindall,  is  not  furprizing.  The  characlers 
of  thofe  writers,  is  well  known.  But  that  fuch  a 
man  as  you,  ftould  deign  to  tranfcribe  them,  that 
you  Ihould  demean  yourfelf  fo  far,  as  to  tack  fuch 
vile  patches  to  your  text,  that  you  fnduld  lay  them 
cooly  before  your  readers  as  uieful  obfervations,  is 
not  to  be  conceived. 

We  have  the  mod  tender  regard,  fir,  for  your  chi- 
rafter.  VJe  do  not  think  that  the  arguments  now 
confuted,  whether  you  are  the  author,  or  only  the 
copier  of  them,  can  ever  contribute  to  raife  the  glo- 
ry of  it.  We  therefore  think  that  it  would  be  bet- 
ter for  you  to  omit  them  in  your  new  edition. 

We  remain,  with  refped, 

Yours,  Sec. 

(t)  L:  CoHini  ami  Tindall.  We  afcribe  them  to  thofe  critics,  merely  on  the 
authority  of  iVIr,  Voltaire  who  fometimes  errs.  Perhaps  he  has  bo  red 
tJjem?ftom  other  v.-riccrs,  Icfs  learned  and  lefi  faithful.     Ant. 

i 
J 


c  E  n.  T  A  I  N     J  E  w  s;,  67 


LETTER     IV. 

In  lubich   enquiry  is  made  into    the  illti/lrioits  author's 

')rivate  opinions,  upon  the  charaders  and fuhjlances 

which  ivete  ufsd  for  ivritirig,  in  ihe  time  of  Mofes. 

Variations  and  co7itradiclions  of  the  learned  writer 

on  ihcfe  two  cbjeds. 

«'  Tel  eft  I'homme  en  efl"e<S,  il  va  du  blanc  au  noir, 
"  Kt  coiiddnme  an  matin  fes  fcntimens  tlu  foir." 

A  HE  art  with  which  your  note  is  written,  fir,  and 

the  intereft  which   you  feem  to  take  in  the   fubjecl, 

«;ave  us   room   to  think    that  none   of  the   opinions 

which  you  had  laid  down,  and  which  you  afcribed  to 

vour    moft  learned    critics,  was   indilferent   to  you. 

We  were  convinced,  more  efpecially,  that  you  had 

adopted  their  opinions  upon  the  characters  and  the 

fubitances  which  were  ufed  in  writing,  at  the  time 

of  our  legiflator.    But  juft  as  our  letter  was  finiflied, 

five  or  fix  new  trafts  were  put  into  our  hands,  in 

^vhich  you    fpeak  of  the  charadlers    and  fubftances 

that   Vv'ere  nled  for   writing,  in  the  time  of  Mofes. 

We  immediately  perufed  them,  and  compared  them 

with  one  another,  and  alfo   with  your  other  works, 

in  hopes  of  fmding  in  them  frefli  information,  or  of 

learning  at  leafl  what  are  your  particular  fentiments 

.on  thefe  two  objects. 

Perhaps  we  are  miflaken,  fir,  but  the  refult  of 
this  comparifon  feems  to  be,  that  you  have  no  fixed 
principles  or  determinate  opinion  on  thefe  matters 
at  all,  as  is  your  cafe,  on  many  others.  You  agree 
with  thofe  writers  in  fome  places,  and  contradict 
them  in  others,  nay  you  contradift  yourfelf  in  tlie 
plained  manner,  dill  (hifting  from  one  opinion  to 
another,  according  as  caprice  or  the  prejudice  of  the 
moment  (i)  hurries  you  away.  This  we  fnall  fiiew 
vou  in  the  foUowin^x  letter. 

(l)   Harries  yiu  aivjy.     Is  lie  rot  Inirricrt  away  rnthfr  Sy  reccffity  ?  Tf  ap- 
pears jilanly  tiiat  Mr.  Vckairc,  who  is  at  the  bottom  indiiTtrcat  tv  ali  m<i- 


68  L    E    T    T    E     R    S       OF 

§  I  Mr.  VoItaire^s  contraditfions  ivith  j-cgard  1o 
the  char  ciders  which  -were  ufcd  for  ivriiiiig  in  the  time 
ef  Mofes. 

We  have  feen  above  tbat  you  make  your  critics 
fay  in  your  note,  that  alphabetical  charai5lers  v/ere 
not  known  in  the  time  of  Mofes  ;  that  the  only 
method  was  hieroglyphical,  that  the  Chaldeans, 
Phenicians,  and  Egyptians  wrote  no  other  way. 
You  fay  exprefsly  in  your  Philofophy  cf  Hijlory^  that 
the  Chaldeans,  who  were  inllrucled,  according  to 
you,  in  this  art  before  the  Phenicians  and  Egypti- 
ans, engraved  for  ^ /o;^9-//;;zf J  their  obfervations  and 
their  laws  in  hieroglyphicks,  and  that  it  was  very 
late  before  they  were  acquainted  with  alphabetical 
charatSlers. 

Now  this  is  what  we  read   in   vour    Diatribe  de 

J 

rAbbe  Ba-zin,  "  Sanchoniatho  lived  about  the  time 
*'  in  which  we  place  the  lad  years  of  Mofes.  This 
'*  Phenician  author  exprefsly  owns,  that  he  took 
*'  part  of  his  hiflory  from  the  writings  of  Thor,  who 
"  lived  eight  hundred  years  before  him.  i  his  con- 
*'  fellion,  which  is  not  fufficiently  attended  to,  is  one 
"  of  the  mofl  curious  teilimonies  that  antiquity  -has 
"  tranfmitted  to  us.  It  proves  that  eight  hundred 
"  years  had  elapfed,  fmce  they  had  books  written  by 
*'  help  of  the  alphabet :  That  nations  could  under  (land 
"  each  other  by  means  of  (i)  this,  and  re.ciproca'ly 
*'  tranflate  the  v/orks  of  each  other  :  The  Chakleans 
"  the  Syrians,  the  Phenicians,  the  Egyptians,  the 
"  Indians,  the  Perfians,  had  neceiTariiy  a  nnuual 
"  communication,  and  alphabetical  writing  mud 
"  have  facilitated  this  communication.'* 

What!  Sir,  lathe  time  of  Mcfcs  alphabetical  cha^ 

nions,  changes  principles  as  corfairs  chanj^e  colo\irs,  accorJinor  to  tlic  enemy 
from  whom  they  w;iiit  to  tfcape,  or  whom  thty  witTi,  to  {wvywzv:.  'I'iiis  ma- 
Dotnvre  may  be  ulcful,  but  does  it  become  a  li-arnni  man  ?  !»  I'lAi,  /•■j/euh.j. 
for  the  triib,  u/ul  not Jor  vain  Jlfli:!,itKii.      Edit, 

(l)  By  mtu'ii  tjf  this.  '1  hi;  toiilViriop.  i\(  .^aiicroriatho,  decs  nit  at  all 
prove  what  Mr  Voltaire  infers.  It  wasrot  iit-c;  f;'?ry  that  iiit;fc  hooks  cf 
"i'hor,  fliould  have  be-n  written  in  alj'Iiabitic^l  charsdtrs  to  enable  han- 
choniatho  to  take  pait  of  hishillcry  ficni  th(.ni.  Sanchoniatho  pcritaps  un- 
ch-'rllooU  hieroglyphical  writing,  cr  he  iiii^lit  have  got  it  ciphaiijid  to  h.ifa 
by  the  Egyptian  pi  iells,     £.///. 


e    E    R    T    A    I    I^      J    E    W    S.  69 

raders  were  not  known  :  They  wrote  only  in  hierogly- 
phic ks  :  The  Phenicians  and  the  Egyptians  did  not  write 
etherwife.  And  Sanchoniatho  the  Phenician,  the 
cotemporary  of  Mofes,  if  he  did  not  live  before  him, 
wrote  in  alphabetical  characlers  ;  and  eight  hundred 
years  before  him,  they  had  in  Egypt  books  written 
by  the  help  of  the  alphabet,  and  even  then  nations 
could  underftand  and  communicate  with  each  other 
by  means  of  this.  Can  there  be  more  palpable  con- 
tradidions  ? 

But  here  follow  fome  others  of  the  fame  flamp. 
You  fay  in  your  Pbilofophy  of  Hijlory^  (article  Pheni- 
cians,) "  That  all  the  remains  we  have  of  ancient 
"  monuments,  inform  us,  that  Sanchoniatho  lived 
"  nearly  at  the  fame  time  with  Mofes."  And  you 
add  a  little  lower,  that  his  book  (which  if  we  believe 
you,  was  written  in  alphabetical  charafters,)  **  is 
"  of  prodigious  antiquity.'*  Here  then  alphabetical 
chara6lers,  which  were  according  to  you,  a  very  late 
invention,  even  among  the  molt  learned  ancient  na- 
tions, are  now  become  of  prodigious  antiquity  :  And 
the  legiflator  o^  late  date  of  the  Jewifli  nation,  which 
according  to  you  is  of  very  late  date  alfo,  is  now  ac- 
cording to  you,  the  cotemporary  of  an  author  of  prodi* 
gious  airtiquity  !  Can  thefe  affertions  be  eafily  recon- 
ciled with  each  other  ? 

§  2.  That  he  contradiils  again  his  writers  and  him* 
felf  with  regard  to  the  fubftances  which  were  ufedfor 
.writing  in  the  time  of  Mofes. 

You  are  not  in  a  better  ftate  of  agreement  with 
your  writers,  or  more  confident  with  yourfelf,  in 
Ipeaking  of  the  fubftances  which  were  ufed  for  writ- 
ing, in  the  time  of  the  Jewifii  legiflator.  You  aflure 
us  in  your  Philofophy  of  Hiftory,  that  before  hiero* 
glyphicks,  7nen  painted  their  conceptions  in  a  clumfy 
manner.  Therefors  colours  were  ufed  and  em.ploy- 
ed  then.  And  according  to  your  writers,  in  the 
time  of  Mofes,  that  is,  in  the  time  of  hieroglyphicks, 
colours  were  not  ufed.  The  only  manner  of  writ- 
ing, was  to  engrave  ones  thoughts  on  ftone,  lead, 
and  v/ood. 

% 


^©  Lettersof 

This  is  not  nil :  According  to  your  critlcks,  peo- 
ple Vv'rote  on  Jhfie^  hrick,  metals  and  wood.  You 
fay  likewife,  (Philolbphy  ot  Hiftory,)  that  thz  Chal- 
deans engraved  their  obfervations  on  brick,  and  that 
the  Egyptians  ei^graved  their  writing  on  marbk  and 
ivood.  Therefore,  if  we  believe  you  and  your  cri- 
ticks,  (lone  was  not  the  only  fuhjiance  en'  which  they 
then  wrote :  But  if  we  believe  you,  in  your  letters 
from  a  Quaker,  to  bilhop  Georges,  and  in  other 
places,  they,  wrote  on  nothing  th:n  hut  Jione.  Thefe 
appear  tons  (i)  palpable  coiitradiclions. 

§  3.  Rejieclions  on  the  J^aker's  opi7iion  ;  its  ah- 
Jurdity. 

-.  Let  us  flop  a  moment  to  confider  the  extraordina- 
ry pretenfioiis  of  the  (^aker,  who  is  the  interpreter 
of  vour  thoughts. . 

'•  You  ought  not  to  be  ignorant  (fays  he  to  (2) 
the  bifhop,  v.iih  the  moft  dogmatick  air,)  "  that 
"  they  then  wrote  on  nothing  but  (3)  (lone. 

"  Ton  ouZ'Ji  nst  to  be  i?norant.'*  ••'  We  mav  -be- 
ignorant  of  this  without  tailing  in  any  duty.  An 
abfurd  opinion  is  not  a  piece  of  knowledge  which  we 
are  under  an  obligation  of  acquiring. 

"  That  they  wrote  on  nothing  but  Jione. ^^  I  might 
SxS.  welJ  fay  that  the  Jews  Iiev/cd  nothing,  but  the 
granite  flone,  and  built  nothing  but  the  pyran-;ids. 
Do  arts  begin  by  their  moil  diilicult  parts  t  Is  this 
hr,  their  ufual  progrefs  ? 

(0  P-ilpahh  centrad'fii'rcns'  What  matter  ?  a'.tho'  contraf'.isSions  are  dif- 
3frieci.!)le  t'>  r>.nic;  readers,  yet  they  ;ire  very  uf<.t'u:  to  Top.ie  writers.  1  h«.y 
reap  this  aiivaiu.ige  at  leaft  iViini  thrni,  that  they  murt  necefTariy  be  in  t!ie 
right,  cither  when  thcv   deny  or  when  they  afljrtn.     Aat 

(2)    Tl/c  ii'j/hcjt.     We  Vnow  tlif  ir  prelatu  only   by   h.s  vvrifi;ii;;s  :    But   wc 
thitjk  that  the  'i^ualrtr,  notwi;r.l"'ani!in^    h:s  pompous     i>araiif  of  ED^liJh  ' 
cnulitioii,    niiirht  he  fciit  to  fthoui,  aiul  there    be   jiri/fitah.ly    iaftrudlcd.  on 
more  liibjeils  than  one.     F.Jit. 

{_l)  NiTthiftg  bul  p.oie.  Pvlr.  VoJtair*,  RfTurcs  lii?e\vLfe  in  anotlier  plare, 
(c'cfi.Dcc  of  my  urcie,)  tbnt  ths  Vid^im,  according  to  innr,  oneoftbr.  ihiee  noji  _ 
anc'thit  l(H,ks  ill  ifji  ii-vi  IJ,  ivai ivrUicn  or.  runty  u:tJ  in  L'ti-forlyjjhical  tL^aiiiS-crS. 
Wc  imr.l  piohaf.'iy  lay  the  l?.!r\eof  the  book  of  Job,  -al'lfb  irjny  harr.ei  tfin, 
fays  he.  Lave  tho>:^bt  xv'.i'u  go^d  rufuHy  prior  to.  Aiojei,  Ivjcvfi  .gciuf-atieat.  But, 
befidts  that  bowks  written  upon  Itotit",  will  always,  look  rathvr  inrrci^ible,  is 
there  nut  fume  \va:.t  of ',ulc  inftrciice  in  admittiifo;  hocks  \vri!tc-n  on  rtore, 
a!;ii  the!' de:!y!ng  chui  IvIvJcs  couiti,  in  the  fi^cc  01  niurti.tii.iii  thirty  ycurs, 
get  the  res:atcuch>vmtca  uf'uu  ilv;:^c  .'    ^ut. 


«    E    p.    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    Si.  71 

'But  let  US  liftento  this  primitive  man,  ?.nd  fee  his 
proofs.  "  They  wrote  on  nothing  but  {tone,  fays 
"  he,  becaufe  it  is  faid  in  the  book  of  Joihua,  that 
**  he  wrote  Deuteronomy  upon  (tones."  Very  well : 
Suppofewe  were,  to  fay,  the  treaty  which  was  made 
feme  years  ago,  between  the  Ruffians  and  the  Chi- 
Rtfe,  upon  the  frontiers  of  both  empires,  was  there 
written  .on  ftone  :  Therefore,  fome  years  ago,  the 
Ruffians  wrote  on  nothing  but  ftonc,  and  the  Chi- 
nd'c  knew  not  the  ufe  of  ink  or  paper.  Vv^ould.you 
find  this  reafoninr:  very  ju(l  ?  Yet  this  h  the  way 
your  Quaker  reafons  :  He  fuddcniy  draws  aconclu- 
fion  from  the  particular  to  the  univerfal :  This  truly 
is  the  argument  of  a  poet  or  a  (i)  Quaker. 

From  what  the  Scripture  oblerves,  that  the  Deca- 
logue, and  according  to  him,  Deuteroi'iomy  were 
written  upon  (tone,  he  infers  that  they  wrote  on  no- 
thing elfe  :  He  ihould  have  drawn  I  think,  a  quite 
contrary  inference  from  this.  In  faO:  would  the 
Scripture  have  obferved,  that  the  Decalogue  and 
Deuteronomy,  or  rather  a  part  of  Deuteronomy, 
were  writen  on  flone,  if  they  had  then  no  other 
way  of  writing  ?  And  v/hy,  as  writing  is  fo  often 
mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  the  v/ri(ing  on  ftone, 
mentioned  only  in  thefe  two  places  ?  Laftly,  when 
Joffiua,  according  to  the  Quaker,  caufed  Deute- 
ronomy to  be  written  on  ftone  by  his  engravers, 
it  muft  be  granted,  that  either  he  had  the  pa- 
tience to  dictate  it  to  them  viva  voce,  which  is  pafl 
belief,  or  that  he  gave  it  to  them  written  on  a  dif- 
ferent fubftance,  othervvile  the  engravers  would  have 
had  a  (2)  double  employment  ;  therefore  they  wrote 
on  other  fubftances  befides  Itone. 

If  in  the  time  of  Mofes,  they  wrote  on  nothing 
but  ftone,  the  city  of  Cariat  Stipher  of  which,  by  the 
way,  you  are  pleafed  to  ma;ke  a  country,  muft  have 

(i)  Apoclor  a^ahr.  Thsrc  arc  pocts  whoreaffH  well,  and  Quakers 
full  of  ftnfe,  always  extepting;  ill  nntt-.-rs  of  religion.     Edit. 

(3)  Djulli  emJ?lo\ment.  It  is  evident  that  the  workmen,  muft  have  had 
under  their  eyes,  models  of  what  they  were  to  cni/iav,  more  efpeciinly  if 
they  were  to  enpravc  b»oI;s,  or  fome  work  of  length  :  And  it  is  :;o  lcf>i  evi- 
dent, tlut  thefc  modcU,  could  not  have  been  engraven  on  fipnc.     £Jil. 


72 


Letters     of 


been  a  noble  magazine  of  flones,  if  the  Canaanites 
wrote  at  all,  for  it  was  according  to  you,  the  place 
ivhere  the  records  of  the  nation  ivere  kept^  ivhen  the 
Hebreivs  entered  Palejiine  :  The  book  of  accounts  of 
the  merchants  of  Tyre,  who  no  doubt  (i)  wrote 
much,  were  great  heaps  of  ftones  ;  and  the  leaves  of 
Sanchoniatho's  book,  fo  many  poliftied  (lones  ;  and 
when  the  kings  of  Egypt  delivered  to  their  courtiers, 
thofe  letters  of  ftate  which  gave  birth  to  the  epifto- 
lary  kind  of  writing,  they  loaded  them  with  flones  ; 
and  the  Egyptian  priefts  carried  ftones,  when  they 
perambulated  their  cities  in  proceffion,  bearing  the 
numerous  books  of  their  Thot!  Your  Quaker  fwal- 
lows  all  thefe  abfurdities.  In  truth,  fir,  is  he  in  ear- 
iieft,  or  is  he  playing  upon  the  ignorance  of  his  rea- 
ders ? 

It  is,  however,  certain  that  at  that  time,  they  did 
write  upon  ftone :  But  what  did  they  write  on  it  ? 
Public  memorials,  fays  the  learned  count  deCaylus. 
Then,  as  well  as  now,  they  were  engraved  on  ftone, 
or  brafs,  as  they  were  intended  to  refift  the  injuries 
of  weather,  and  the  duration  of  time.  But  as  for 
every  thing  elfe,  it  was  written  as  at  this  day,  upon 
every  fubftance  that  could  receive  writing. 

You  will  think  perhaps  fir,  that  we  have  dwelt  too 
long  upon  an  opinion  of  fuch  palpable  abfurdity. 
"We  would  have  fuppreifcd  all  we  have  faid  of  it,  had 
we  found  it  only  in  the  Quaker's  letter.  But  we  fee 
traces  of  it,  in  your  moft  (2)  ferious  compofitions, 
when  you  make  fome  great  men  fay  thefe  words, 
*'  that  the  hi/lories^  and  the  laws  of  Mofcs  and  of  Jo- 
,*'  fhua^  ivould  have  been  engraved  onjlone  (3)  //^  i^i 

(1)  Wrote  much.  Certainly,  as  Mr.  Vo'taire  obferves  in  his  Defence  dc 
mon  Oncle,"  if  the  fcienccs  were  then  cultivated  in  the  little  city  df  D.ibir, 
"  in  how  mueh  requcft  rnuft  they  have  been  inSitlon,  and  in  Tyre,  which 
''  were  called  the  country  of  books,  the  country  of  records  "     Aut. 

We  know  tliat  the  city  of  Dabir,  was  called  the  country  of  bonks,  ths  country 
ffreeords,  hut  we  never  heard  that  thefe  names,  had  been  given  to  the  ci- 
ties of  Tyre  and  Sitlon.  This  is  an  anecdote  which  the  learned  critic  vouch- 
fafes  to  fupply  U3  witK  :  Wc  fincereiy  th^^nk  him  for  it  :  We  could  with 
however,  that  he  would  inlorm  us  where  he  found  it.     £dit. 

(2)  Serious  compofttioit.  See  the  Philofophy  of  Hiftory,  (article  Mtifes  )  Aut, 

(3)  ■(^'«  rial'it;j  tbe^  bad  ever  exijied.     Thus  Mf.  Vo'taire,  in  his  Phiiclu« 


certainJews.  y^ 

'*  reality  they  had  ever  exijled.**  This  opinion  is 
found  again  in  other  tracts,  and  it  has  made  its  ap- 
pearance lately  in  the  work  of  a  writer,  who  is  in 
other  refpe6ls  well  informed  :  fo  fpreading  is  the 
moil  improbable  error,  when  a  celebrated  author 
has  given  it  authority  !  This  determined  us  to  fpeak 
of  it  more  amply,  than  we  intended  at  firfl  to  have 
done. 

§  IV.  On  the  reproach  of  want  of  jttji  inference^ 
and  of  contradidiom,  which  Mr.  Voltaire^  calts  on  the 
■  author  of  Emilius. 

Let  us  return.  You  laugh  at  the  falfe  reafoning, 
and  the  contradictions  of  poor  fean  Jacques.  It  mud 
be  allowed,  that  they  -are  pretty  frequent.  But  has 
not  poor  Jean  Jacques,  fome  right  to  laugh  at  yours 
in  his  turn  ?  And  if  this  little  man^  had  a  mind  to 
point  them  out  to  the  publick,  could  he  not  amufe 
the  world  (0  ^^  your  expence  ?  Beware  of  this,  fir, 
Icripedem  redus  derideat  JEthiopem  albus. 

No,  you  have  no  right  to  charge  any  one  with 
falfe  reafonings  and  contradidions,  after  all  thofe  we 
have  fet  forth,  and  many  others  which  we  meet  with 
every  inftant  in  your  work. 

Do  thofe  innumerable  contradictions,  and  conti- 

phy  ofHiftory,  (art.  of  Mofes.)'malces  Aben,  Ezra,  Nugnez,  Maimonides, 
the  learned  leClcrc,  Middleton.thofe  learned  nitn  known  under  the  appella- 
tion of  Dutch  divines,  and  even  the  great  Newton,  reafon.  But  this  reafon- 
ing is  not  theirs  :  The  philofopher  might  have  fpared  them  the  honour  of  it. 
What  right  has  he  to  make  thcfe  great  men  fay  a  filly  thing  ?     ^ut. 

We  may  obferve  here  again,  as  well  as  in  the  note,  that  he  carefully  dif- 
tinguifhcs  the  learned  le  Clerc,  from  thofe  learned  men  known  under  the 
appellation  of  Dutch  divines.  Does  thd  illuftriDus  writer  forget  that  le  Clerc, 
with  one,  or  at  moft  two  of  his  friends,  was  ilie  author  of  a  book  called. 
Opinions  'jf  certain  Dutch  divines  ?  Or  does  he  want  to  perfuade  his  readers, 
that  thtfe  divines  formed  a  cnnfiderable  learned  body,  to  which  Ic  Clerc  did 
not  belon^:^,  and  that  by  coiifcquence  he  is  to  he  named  by  himfelf  \  This 
•would  be  a  very  eafy  method  ef  multiplying  authorities,  but  probably  it 
Would  not  jueetwith  general  approbation. 

LoUs  an  virtus  quis  in  lo/Je  requirat  ?  This  it  feems  is  the  maxim  of  feme 
modern  writers  IBut  altho'  it  may  be  fometimes  ufeful,  it  is  never  honour- 
able ;   and  the  advantages  wliitb  it  procures  are  of  fliort  duration.      EJit. 

(i)  At  ytur  expend.  V/e  do  not  aim  here  at  fowing  divifion  in  the  ene- 
my's camp.  There  is  too  much  of  it  there  already,  to  the  great  fcinda!  of 
jihilofophy.  However,  if  the  citizen  of  Geneva  was  by  chance  to  review 
fome  of  the  treatifes  of  the  learned  critic,  he  would  be,  no  doubt,  a  more  for- 
midable advirfury  tb.an  a  company  <f  nnfortuijatc  Jews,  who  maybe  fecuro- 
>}y  defpifeJ,  and  tro-Jdcn  ukJc:  i'oo:.     Aut, 


74         "  Lettersof 

nual  variations,  evidence  a  writer  v/ho  is  mafter  of 
his  fubjeci  ?  A  man  of  truth,  who  advances  nothing 
of  which  he  is  not  certain  ?  A  well-informed,  faith- 
ful guide,  who  may  be  entrulled  to  fjiew  the  way 
without  refervation  ?  Or  do  they  evidence  a  fuperfi- 
cial  underilanding  Vv-hich,  never  having  gone  to  the 
bottom  of  any  thing,  turns  about  with  every  wmd  of 
opinion?  Which,  holding  truth  and  falfliood  as  in- 
different, aims  at  nothing  but  to  diftinguifli  itfelf 
from  others,  by  attacking  facls  which  they  refpect  ? 
And  which,  in  order  to  accomphfh  this  end,  coir; piles 
heavily  not  only  the  mofl  ablurd,  but  the  moil  con- 
tradidlory  opinions  ;  as  if  the  author  was  making  a 
fportive  trial  to  fee  how  far  public  credulity,  and  the 
blind  deference  of  his  votaries  to  all  his  dilates, 
would  go.  Thefe,  fir,  are  the  judgments  which  v/e 
fear  for  your  writings,  and  v/hich  we  could  wi(h  ycu 
T/ouId  prevent,  by  adhering  a  Httle  more  to  truth 
jind  confiftency  in  treating  thofe  fubjefts  which  we 
have  now  fpoke  of,  and  (liall  fpeak  of  hereafter.    . 

We  remain,  with  the  highefl  fentiments  of  fmceri- 
ty  and  refpecl:,  ^'c. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    ^-   S.  75 

L  E  T  T  E  R     V, 

Where  the  objccllons  in  Mr.  Voltaire's  note  again fi 
the  hijlory  of  the  adoration  of  the  golden  calf  are  an- 
fwcred. 


Af 


FTER  having  ineffeftually  oppofed  to  the  gene- 
ral opinion  of  Jev/s  and  Chri(i:ians,  who  believe  Mo- 
fes  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  pretend- 
ed impofTibility  he  was  in  of  writing  it,  you  pafs  from 
this  general  and  external  objection  to  thofe  particu- 
lar difHculties  which  you  draw  from  the  very  grounds 
of  the  v/crk  ;  you  dwell  upon  forae  fafts  which  are 
related  in  it,  and  you  reprefenr  them,  after  your  cri- 
tics, as  falfe,  impoliible,  and  abfurd. 

Here,  fir,  the  queib'on  changes,  and  becomes  much 
more  intereding.  You  ha\e  apprized  your  readers 
of  it.  Whether  Mofes  could,  or  could  not,  write 
the  Pentateuch  ;  V\'hethcr  he  wrote  it  in  fuch  a  form 
as  we  have  ft  now,  or  whether  the  public  fcribes  and 
prophets  made  fome  flight  additions  to  k  ;  thefe  are 
merely  points  of  criticifm  on  which  every  one  is  at 
liberty  to  hold  that  opinion  which  he  thinks  bed  j 
his  attachment  to  either  fide  can  be  of  no  great  con- 
fequence.  But  If  many  of  the  principal  fadls,  relat- 
ed in,  thofe  books,  are  evidently  falfe  and  incredible, 
the  v>'ork  is  unworthy  of  Mofes,  or  of  any  other 
writer,  diredled  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  To  prove 
fuch  a  falfliood  would  at  once  deflroy  the  authentici- 
ty and  infpiration  of  thofe  books  which  have  been 
refpecled  for  fo  many  ages.  This  object  your  wri- 
ters have  probably  in  view,  who,  by  turning  fa<5ls 
their  ovv-n  v/ay,  and  artfully  altgring  circumftances, 
flrive  to  give  them  an  air  of  improbabiliiy  and  ab- 
furdity  that  may  (hock  the  readers. 

The  adoration  of  the  golden  calf  is  one  of  thofe 
fadls  which  they  have  attacked  with  tlie  greateft  vi- 
gour. This  fcid  appears  to  them  in  itftif  impcflible, 
in  Its  circumHauces   inccnccivabk,  and  full  of  in- 


y6  LettepvSof 

juflice  and  cruelty  in  all  its  confequences.  From 
whence  they  conclude  that  this  ivhole  chapter  has  been 
added  to  the  books  of  Mofes^  as  well  as  many  others. 

We  fhall  now  fet  forth  thofe  difficulties,  and  en- 
deavour to  anfwer  them.  We  (hall  take  the  liberty 
of  inverting  the  order  of  them ;  but,  however,  we 
fliall  conceal  none  of  them. 

§  I .  Whether  chymijiry,  in  its  highcjl  J^age  of  per-- 
fe^ion,  can  reduce  gold  into  potable  powder. 

If  we  are  to  believe  thofe  writers,  //  is  impojfible  to 
reduce  gold  into  potable  powder^  and  the  art  of  chymiftry 
{y)  in  its  high cji  Ji age  of  perfedicn,  could  not  effetl 
this. 

Are  they  very  certain  of  what  they  advance  ?  Or, 
if  they  have  no  certainty  of  it,  why  do  they  decide 
fo  boldly .? 

I  fhall  not  quote  here  our  chymlfts.  You  cannot 
but  know  that  the  Hebrews  have  always  had  eminent 
{kill  in  this  way,  and  that  great  kings  have  often 
deigned  to  employ  the  fons  of  xlbraham  to  call  their 
metals.  No,  your  own  Chriftians  fliall  confound 
this  baptized  incredulous  race. 

Stahl  was  a  Chriftian  and  a  chymiO;  of  the  flrd 
rank,  yet  he  did  not  reafon  as  they  do.  He  did  not 
fay,  I  know  not  how  this  diflblution  can  be  affe<2:ed, 
therefore  it  is  impolTible  ;  therefore  the  Jewifii  le- 
giflature  has  told  us  an  abfurd  ftory,  or  this  Jlory 
has  been  added  to  his  works,  as  many  others  have  been. 
He  was  more  ingenious  and  lefs  prefumptuous  than 
you.  He  rightly  judged  that  an  ancient  author, 
and  the  mofl  ancient  we  know,  an  author  looked 

(l)  Jn  its  bighejlfage.  In  the  Philofophical  Didlonary  (art.  Mofts)  ra 
more  is  faid  than  that  it  was  impoflible  for  common  chymillry,  nfct  then 
invented,  to  effetfl  this  operation.  Wc  do  not  exa(5lly  know  the  limits  of 
what  the  autlior  thinks  proper  to  call,  common  chyiv.illry.  But  we  know 
Ihit  even  the  Epyptians  worked  mines  of  gold  and  Hlvcr,  that  they  under- 
flood  that  mod  difficult  branch  of  working  pewter,  that  they  had  the  art  of 
refiiiii);^  thof«  metals,  that  they  embalmed  dead  bodies  with  chymical  prepa- 
rations, which  have  prefcrved  thei«  until  our  days,  &c.  &c.  And  thercltrc 
that  a  chymillry,  or  chymical  operations /^rrz/y  lcarned\\-i.ii.  been  found  out. 

We  may  obfcrve  befides  how  the  Didionary  and  th;  ticatife  on  toleration 
apree;  in  the  one,  common  chymiftry,  in  the  other,  chymitlry  in  4ts  higk. 
^'.[tiat  of  ptrJeStim^  could  nut  poflibly  wffeft  this  operation.     Euit. 


CERTAIN      J   E   W    S.  77 

upon  as  infpired  for  Co  many  ages  and  by  fo  many 
nations,  well  deferved  to  be  tried  before  he  was  con- 
demned, and  that  it  was  proper  before  he  pronounc- 
ed, as  your  critics  have  done  in  a  decifive  and  pofi- 
tive  tone,  this  pretended  impoffibility,    to  be  very 
cleai*  in  the  matter,  and  to  ftate  the  proofs  by  vari- 
ous experiments.     What  has  been  the  refult  ?  His 
experiments   have  led  him  to  execute  by  very  fim- 
ple  means,  what  you  thought  impoffible  without  the 
help  of  a  miracle.     Read,  fir,  his   diflertation  on 
this  fubjedt,  in  his   Opufcula,  you  will  there  find, 
that  *'  the  fait   of   Tartar^    mixed  with    fulphur, 
"  diffolves  gold  Jo  as  to  reduce   it  to  a  potable  pow^ 
"  derr 

We  might  fend  you,  befides,  to    tlie   memoirs 
of  your  acadamy  of  fciences  ;  but  in  all  probability 
you  do  not  read   them.     You  infill  on  it,  that  thofe 
eighty  volumes  contain  nothing  but  empty  fyliems,  and 
not  (i)  one   ujeful  thing.     Call  your  eye,  however, 
on  a  work  called  origin  of  laws,  fciences,  and  arts^ 
where  the  author  fays,  in  fpeaking  of  a  new  courfe 
of  chymiftry  of  one   of  your  moil   learned  phyfici- 
ans,  that  "  the    natron,  a  fubftance  known  in  the 
*'  eaft  and  more  particularly  near  the  Nile,  produc- 
*'  es   this  fame  effect.     That  Mofes  was   very  well 
*'  acquainted  with  the  whole  power  of  its  (2)  ope- 
''  ration  ;  and  that  he  could  not  find  out  a  better 
*'  method   of  punifhing  the   treachery  of  the  Ifra- 
"  elites,  than  by  obliging  them  to  drink  this  pow- 
*'  der,  becaufc  gold  reduced  potable  in  this  manner 
**  has  a  deteftabie  tafte.'* 

L 

(l)  -iVof  one  uftful  tlAng.  See  fecondt  fulte  ies  meJ.mges  EJlt.  Ji  Gtie'Ot, 
Page  304  anJ  obferve,  that  nothing  is  fo  oppofite  to  a  fyftomaticril  fpi- 
rit,  than  the  fpirit  of  this  academy.  Gnc  of  its  firft  principles  is  to  adopt 
no  fyftsm  whatfoever.     Aut. 

(z)Its  Bperdilon.  Mofes  had  been  inftrufted  in  all  the  fciercesof  the 
Egyptians-  Now  the  art  of  calling  metals,  and  of  refininj;  them,  wag 
known  by  this  people  in  tlie  time  of  their  firfh  kings.  Many  ancient  hillori- 
#ns  affert  this,  Diodorus,  Siculus,  Agitharchides,  &c.  It  apjicars  that  ;t 
vras  froin  the  E^'/ptiaas  t'.ut  the  Greeks  lea  >icJ  to  woik  metals. 
Aut. 


78  Lettersof 

This  pofTibility  of  rendering  gold  potable  has  been 
often  repeated  fmce  the  time  of  Stahl  and  Senac,  in 
the  works  and  in  the  leftures  of  your  mod  celebrated 
chymills,  Baron,  Macquer,  &c.  &c.  They  all  a- 
gree  in  this  point.  We  have  none  of  them  before 
us  now,  but  the  lad  edition  of  le  Fevre's  chyrciftry. 
He  clears  up  this  point  as  well  as  the  other  writers, 
and  he  adds,  "  that  nothing  is  more  certain,  and 
'*•  that  we  can  no  longer  entertain  the  leaft  (1)  doubt 
"  of  the  matter." 

What  think  you  now,  fir  ;  is  not  the  teflimony  of 
thofe  ingenious  chymifts  as  refpe£l:able  as  that  of  your 
critics  ?  -And  what  is  it  that  thofe  uncircumcifed  men 
are  attempting  ?  They  know  nothing  of  chymiftry, 
and  yet  they  will  talk  of  it  ;  they  might  have  fpared 
themfelves  this  iliame. 

But  did  you  not  know,  fir,  when  you  were  tranf- 
cribing  thisforry  objection,  that  thepoorefl:  chymift 
could  confute  it  ?  Chymiftry  is  not  your  talent,  it  is 
'eafy  to  fee  it.  "  Therefore  de  Rouelle's  (2)  paffioil 
""  rifes,  his  eyes  fiafh  fire,  and  his  rage  burfts  forth 
"  when  by  chance  he  reads  what  you  have  faid  of  it 
*'  in  fome  parts  of  (3)  your  works."  Sound  the  epic 
trumpet,  lir  ;  difpute  the  prize  with  Sophocles  and 
Euripides,  but  lay  afide  the   art    of  Pott  and  Ma^ 

Here,  then,  the  principal  objection  of  your  critics, 
which  they  advanced  with  the  utmoft  confidence,  is 
confuted.     Let  us  proceed  to  the  next, 

(l)  The  lca(l  douht .  Abcii  E.ra  had  already  fufpefted  that  Mofes  had 
rendcTtd  ijold  }H)tahle  by  fonic  ihyniical  proccfs.  Some  time  altar  Aben 
Ezra,  another  Rabbin,  wrote  that  he  had  bten  hinifelf  witnefs  to  a  like  ope- 
ration. But  doubts  had  been  entertained  until  the  time  of  Stahl.  Obfervc 
hov/  uftful  diCcoveritg  are,  fincc  To  many  years  after,  the  old  errors  are  foift- 
td  in  u])on  usu;j;uin.     ^-^ut- 

{%\  Jc  Riiuelln' s.  This  fauious  man,  who  died  fince  the  former  edition  of 
tnefe  letters,  Was  defervedly  reckoned  the  fidl  chymift;  in  France.  Wc  are 
well  afltired,  that  Tic  did  not  admire  thofe  psrts  moft  in  Mr.  Voltaire's  vtrit- 
iiigs  which  treated  of  chymiftry.     Chriji. 

(.3)  'luur  ivorh.  Let' Mr.  Voltaire  fay  what  he  will,  it  is  certain  that  the 
palfape  marked  with  .commons  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  edition  publifticd  at 
Paris,  atLavvience  Prault's  ^/i^i'i.  ^fprvLuiitu  Is' pri-uiUirc.  Biu  fmce  the  illuf- 
t:n.u«  writer  has  quoted  it,  andfeenisnot  diflatisticd  with  it,  WC  think  W« 
iitik)  ^ivc  it  aiiotLt.1'  plucc  in  this  edition.    ..'.:•/. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  79 

§  2.  Whether  a  ?niracle  was  necejpiry,  or  three 
months  labour  to  caji  the  golden  calf. 

Thofe  learned  critics  affirm  again,  that  it  was  im- 
pojjtble  in  Icfs  than  three  months,  without  a  miracle^  to 
caJi  the  golden  calf.  In  this  they  err,  or  are  willing 
to  lead  others  into  error. 

Perhaps  they  think  this  golden  calf  was  a  Colonfus. 
But,  fir,  you  have  not  forgot,  I  hope,  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  plan  of  our  forefathers,  it  was  intended  to 
be  borne  at  the  head  of  our  armies.  Make  us,  fay 
they,  gods  which  can  go  before  us.  You  may  well  fup- 
pofe,  that  according  to  this  plan,  it  was  not  necefiary 
that  this  flatue  fliould  be  as  heavy  as  Harry  the 
IVth's  horfe  on  the  -Pont-neuf,  or  the  laocoon  at 
Marli.  Perhaps  the  criticks  have  feen  the  golden 
calf  reprefented  in  fomc  pidure  according  to  the  ca- 
price of  the  painter,  and  they  have  concluded  rafhly 
from  the  painting  to  the  original.  You  well  know, 
fir,  that  painters,  as  well  as  poets,  are  often  bad  au- 
thorities. 

Some  Chriftians  have  wrote  that  this  golden  calf 
was  made  in  the  form  of  an  human  body,  with  the 
head  of  a  calf,  in  the  tafte  of  thofe  anubifes  with 
dogs  heads,  which  are  fhewn  in  the  cabinets  of  the 
curious,  or  in  the  form  of  thife  cherubims  with 
calves  heads,  of  which  you  fpeak  in  fome  place. 
You  think  that  this  idol  was  an  Apis ;  fo  let  it  be. 
But  do  you  deem  a  miracle  neceffary  for  calling  an 
anubis  or  apis  portable  and  coarfely  executed,  as  were 
the  works  of  the  Egyptians,  who  were  the  (1)  teach- 
ers of  our  forefathers  in  the  arts  ? 

(l)  Tie  teachert  of  ovr  forefathers,  Sic.  According  to  Mr.  Voltaire  they 
were  ignorant  teachers,  without  tafto.  His  predominant  madntfs  at  prefoDt 
is  to  fliew  that  the  Egyptians  were  tiic  moll  ccmtemptihle  people  (always  ex- 
cepting us  however)  on  the  face  of  the  earthy  '1  lie  E^yf>tiiiu,  fays  he,  vfi'^'t 
t/jL-  nuhole,  luerc  a  contenptih'.e  people,  lei  the  nJtn'irer  ofpynimidsray  ich.it  ihey  ivill. 
As  if  the  pyramids  had  been  the  only  moniin-.ents  which  hail  procured  to  the 
E;^yptians  the  admiration  of  poflcrity,  and  that  nothing  had  ever  been  (;ii'i  of 
their  other  buildings,  of  their  teaipUs,  their  palaces,  and  fo  many  otiur 
work*  both  ufcful  and  magniiiccnt  Ha*  the  illuftrious  vriter  forjjot  thofa 
great  and  beautiful  caufeys,  thofe  nunievo-is  moles  from  whence  their  citi/s, 
cammandino;  the  floods,  fecurcly  htluid  the  rivers  fertiliziii":  their  plains  ; 
thofi:  mighty   lakes,  immcufe  rcfcrvwirs  of  water,  without  which  the  lands 


8o  LetTersof 

We  ihall  not  fay,  that  perhaps  our  anceftors  had 
fome  particular  procefs,  with  which  we  are  not  ac- 
quainted, that  might  have  accelerated  this  work: 
This  conjedure,  however,  after  what  we  have  faid, 
would  not  appear  chimerical.  All  we  require  of  you 
is  to  go  into  a  founder's  fhop  :  I  will  anfwer  for  it 
that  if  you  fupply  him  with  proper  materials,  hurry 
him,  and  pay  him  well,  he  will  complete  this  job  for 
you  in  lefs  than  a  week.  We  made  no  great  enqui- 
ries, and  we  found  two  of  this  trade  who  required  but 
three  days  for  the  work.  There  is  much  difference 
between  three  days  and  three  months.  And  we 
doubt  not  but  upon  a  ftrifter  fearch,  workmen  might 
be  found  who  would  finifh  it  in  ftill  lefs  time. 

§  3.  Whether  Aaron  caji  the  golden  calf  in  a  Jingle 
day. 

With  a  view  of  rendering  a  miracle  more  neceffa- 
Ty,  or  the  abfurdity  of  the  pretended  ftory,  more  pal- 
pable, the  criticks  aflert,  that  "  the  people  applied  to 
"  the  brother  of  Mofes,  in  order  to  get  the  golden  calf  (^ 
*'  the  eve  of  that  day,  in  which  Mofes  came  down  V 
*'  from  the  Mount,  and  that  Aaron   caft  it  in  one  ? 
"  day."  '^ 

But  where  did  the  criticks  find  all  thefe  particu-  ^^ 
lars  ?  In   their  own  imaginations  I  fuppofe  ;   for  cer-  a." 
tainly  they  are  not  in  fcripture.     Neither  the  day  in 
which  the  people  afked  for  the  golden  calf,  nor  the 
time  which  Aaron  took  to  make  it  are  determined  in 
fcripture. 

If  therefore  it  is  abfolutely  impoffible,  as  they  fay, 
that,  this  idol  could  be  caft  in  one  day.  If  this  fa6t 
is  abfurd,  or  unaccountable  without  a  miracle,  which 
they  deem  to  be  the  fame  thing,  let  them  obferve, 
that  not  Mofes,  but  they  themfelves  aflert  thofe 
things.  Hov/  dare  they  then  afcribe  them  to  the  fa- 
cred  writer,  who  never  fpoke  of  them  ?  It  is  cafy  to 

would  have  been  barren;  thofe  canals,  which  diftributed  the  waters  on  all 
i^'Ci,  facilitated  commerce,  and  kept  up  plenty  ?  &c.  &c  Does  he  know  no- 
thing of  the  Egyptians  but  their  pyramids?  But  the  deciaimer  Bofiuet,  as 
he  calls  him,  had  cried  up  Egypt,  and  had  faid  nothing  of  China,  it  was 
therefore  proper  to  cry  up  China,  and  lower  Egypt.     £d:t. 


f 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  St 

find  abfurdlties  in  an  author,  when  we  put  what  we 
pleafe  into  his  mouth,  and  without  remorie,  father 
on  him  the  children  of  our  own  ima'xinations. 

Thus  fir,  three  days,  and  perhaps  lefs,  were  fuffi- 
cient  for  cafting  the  golden  calf,  and  it  is  not  faid  in 
any  place,  that  Aaron  took  up  but  one  in  that  work. 
Judge  yourfelf,  whether  the  objection  of  your  cri- 
ticks  is  well  founded. 

§  4.  Whether  it  was  impojjtble  for  the  Jews  to  flip- 
ply  gold  enough,  for  making  thi';  Jlatue. 

Collins,  Tindall,  Bolingbroke,  Iffc.  'bfc.  (\)  cannot 
conceive  that  the  fews^  tuho  had  not  ivherewilh  to  mend 
their  fandals,  could  afk  for  a  calf  of  maffy  gold. 

This  laft  expreflionj  upon  which  they  dwell  -with 
fo  much  fatisfadion,  and  which  you  affecledly  re- 
peat, can  no  longer  intimidate  us.  Although  the 
golden  calf  was  majy,  yet  we  have  feen  that  it  muft 
have  been  portable,  and  of  confequence  that  it  could 
not  be  of  very  great  weight. 

But  inJ}:>ort,  fay  you,  how  could  the  Jews  fiipply 
gold  enough  to  make  even  a  portable  calf. 

How  !  the  book  of  Exodus  will  inform  you.  By 
bringing  unto  Aaron ^  the  golden  ear-rings  of  their 
wives,  their  fons  and  their  daughters. 

Suppofe,  fir,  that  out  of  two  millions  of  fouls, 
to  which  the  Hebrew  people  amounted,  according 
to  your  own  calculation,  there  were   only    150,000 

(l)  Cannot  conceive.  What  matters  it  whether  they  can  conceive  it  or 
'not  ?  They  could  not  conceive  neither,  that  cbymiftry,  in  Its  highi-ftftnge,  ccnlj 
dijfolve goU,  fo  as  to  render  it  potable.  And  yet  we  have  fliewn  the  certainty  of 
this.  T^hey  cannot  conceive!  they  cannot  imagine  !  Fine  principles  of  reafoH- 
ing  indeed  !  No  fource  will  produce  more  paralogiftns,  and  falfe  inferences 
than  this.  From  fuch  premifes  as  thefe,  tfie  vulgar  onc'iide,  tliat  juggler  s 
tricks,  are  the  effcJls  of  magic,  and  that  juij;glers  are  conjurors.  All  reafon- 
ings  of  this  fort,  may  be  reduced  to  the  following  fylln^ifm  "  I,  an  ignor- 
"  ant  man  or  a  wit,  it  matters  not  which,  who  am  not  acquainted  with  the 
"  powers  of  nature,  or  the  improvements  of  induftry,  vsho  have,  hut  a  flight 
"  tiniflure  of  the  arts  and  their  proceffcs,  who  have  ftudicd  but  fupernciidly 
"  the  hiftaries  of  ancient  nations,  the  r  lan<:uages  ami  their  culloms,  I  coi.:- 
"  prehend  within  my  narrow  and  feeble  conception,  all  the  ideas  of  v'vit  is 
*'  or  what  may  be.  Now  /  cannot  conceive  that  fuck  a  thing  is  or  can  he.  1  ncre- 
"  fore  it  is  not,"  The  proper  anfv^-er  to  this  argument  is,  that  tliis  T>ropori- 
tion,  I compnhenJ,  Ikc.  which,  although  it  is  feldoin  expreffrdj  J s  always  au- 
derftood,  favours  neither  of  modefty  nor  truth.     Aut. 


82  Lettersof 

perfons,  women,  boys,  and  girls,  who  wore  ear- 
rings of  gold,  and  let  us  eftimate  each  ear-ring  at  a 
Drachm  only.  You  fee  that  I  am  far  from  valuing 
things  too  high.  Do  not  you  think  fir,  that  150,000 
Drachms  of  gold  would  fuffice  to  make  a  portable 
golden  calf. 

How  will  your  learned  critlcks  anfwer  this  ?  "Will 
they  deny  that  the  women  and  children  of  the  He- 
brews, uiually  wore  ear-rings  of  gold  ?  But  befides 
the  affirmation  of  the  facred  writer,  that  even  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  this  kind  of  ornament  was  known 
in  Paleftine,  and  the  neighbouring  countries.  It 
was  the  cuifom  of  the  Ifhmaelites,  to  wear  them, 
even  when  they  were  (i)  going  to  battle.  And  at 
this  time  the  Arabians,  who  are  their  defcendants, 
and  inhabit  the  fanie  deferts,  adorn  themfelves  with 
them  in  common.  In  fliort,  the  ufe  of  them  was 
common  among  the  Egyptians.  And  why  fhould 
not  the  Hebrews  have  had  them  too  ?  Perhaps  you 
think,  that  they  had  left  thefe  jewels  behind  them  in 
Egypt,  or  that  the  gold  of  their  ear-rings,  like  "the 
folcs  of  their  fandals^  had  been  worn  away  in  the  fpace 
of  three  months. 

Biif^  you  will  fay,  the  yewijh  nation  ivas  poor.  We 
fhall  prefently  (hew  you  that  they  were  far  from  be- 
ing fo  poor  as  you  fuppofe  them.  But  even  allow- 
ing them  to  be  fo,  mud  they  have  been  a  very  rich 
people,  if  among  two  millions  of  fouls,  there  were 
found  150,000  perfons,  who  wore,  each  of  them, 
a  jewel  valued  at  a  Drachm  of  gold  ?  EIow  can  you 
tell  befides,  whether  the  greateft  number  of  thofe 
ear-rings,  did  not  make  part  of  thofe  precious  effeds, 
which  they  borrowed  from  thier  ancient  maflers  ? 
We  may  conclude  that  this  objection,  is  jufl:  as  weak 
as  the  (2)  former  ones. 

(l")  Gd'wg  to  Battle,  It  is  related  in  the  8th  Chapter  of  the  book  of  Ju'^ci, 
that  the  Ifrat-lites  made  a  prefent  to  Gideon,  of  all  the  jewels  of  this  Kind 
which  they  had  taken  from  the  vanqtiifhed  Midianites  It  w,ts  found  that 
the  ear-rings  alone,  amounted  to  17CO  (hchcls  of  gold,  that  is  to  fay,  accor- 
ding to  fome  writers,  to  more  than  2500  Lquifdores.     ylut. 

(11  Former  mes.  How  can  a  reafonable  objc-dion  be  drawn  frem  the 
quantity  of  gold,  which  was  to  form  a  Itatue,  when  the  projortior.s  of  tiiat 
llatuc  are  not  known  i     EJit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  83 

§  5.  Concerning  the  23,000  7nen^  which  thofe  cri- 
ticks  fay  were  JJaughtered,  for  having  luorjlytpped  the 
golden  calf. 

"  Deceived  by  the  goodnefs  of  their  hearts,  they 
*'  cannot  believe  that  Mofes  flaughtered  twenty  three 
**  thoufand  men,  to  expiate  this  crime,  or  that  fo 
"  many  men  would  have  fuffered  themfelves  to  be 
*'  flaughtered  by  the  Levites,  without  the  help  of 
*'  another  miracle." 

It  feems  then,  that  your  learned  men,  do  not 
think  that  there  were  23,000  men  killed  in  this  ac- 
tion. Nor  we  neither,  fir.  But,  however,  the  ar- 
guments of  thofe  criticks  do  not  appear  to  us  the 
founder  for  this  reafon.  Let  us,  with  your  leave  ex- 
amine them. 

"  Humanity,  goodnefs  of  heart,  prevent  them  from 
*'  believing,  he.  &c.'*  You   fay  that  this  goodnefs 
of  heart  deceives  them.     Perhaps  you  are  right,  for 
it  is  not  according  to  the  weak  fuppofitions  of  men 
that  God  regulates  his  judgments  and  his  vengeances. 
To  reafon  only  in  a  political  Hght,  do  they  know 
exadlly  how  far  it  was  proper   to  carry  feverity  in 
order  to  keep  this  intractable   multitude  in  awe  of 
the  legiflator,  and  in  an  attatchment  to  their  religion, 
that  principal  part  and  bafis  of  all  legiflation  ?  Huma- 
nity and  goodnefs  of  heart  are   hot  the   only  virtues 
.which    the  head   of  a  great  nation  fliould   poflTefs. 
He  (hould  befides  be  firm  and  fcvere,  more  efpecially 
•  when  the  tranfgreffo'rs  are  in  great  numbers,    and 
the  tranfgreflion  er>ormous.     Now  that  of  the  He- 
brews was  fo  much*  fo,  that  your  writers  havejuil 
now  pronounced  it  inconceivable. 

"  Tv/enty-three  thoufand  men  flaughtered  by  the 
Levites  /"  To  hearken  to  thofe  great  criticks  would 
induce  one  to  believe  that  thefe  Levites  were  but  an 
handful  cS  trembling  priclls.  But  in  the  text,  things 
are  very  different.  Thefe  Levites  are  no  lefs  than 
all  the  Jons  of  Levi  ^  that  is,  the  entire  tribe  of  Levi, 
a  tribe  which  you  know  was  not  (i)  the  Icafl  war- 

(i)   TLe  IcaU  luarlike.     Our  learned  writers,  who  are  accuflomrd  to  con- 
found every  thln^;,  and  to  judge  of  every  thing  by  that  liiiall  circle  of  objtilt 


84  Lettersof 

like  of  the  twelve,  nor  probably  the  (i)  leafl;  attach- 
ed to  Mofes.  Even  fuppofe  that  part  of  this  tribe 
had  been  involved  in  the  general  tranfgreflion,  and 
let  us  fuppofe,  the  number  of  the  Levites  who 
were  drawn  out  againft  the  tranfgrelTors  to  have  been 
10  or  12,000.  Is  it  impolTible  that  10  or  12,000 
men  fhould  kill  23,000  !  And  was  a  miracle  neceffa- 
ry  to  enable  10  or  12,000  men  in  arms,  animated 
by  the  command  of  the  legiflator,  and  by  zeal  for 
their  religion,  to  maHacre  a  people  who  were  taken 
by  furprize  and  unarmed,  and  who  were  intimidated 
by  remorfe  for  their  crime  and  by  the  fear  of  punifli- 
ment  ?  How  many,  much  more  (2)  aftonilhing  events, 
does  prophane  hiflory  relate  which  nobody  ever 
called  in  queltion  ?  Therefore  the  reafonings  of  your 

which  furrounds  them,  from  the  fame  Idea  of  our  Levites  as  they  do  of  the 
pricils  ot  their  religion.     This  is  aaother  miftake.     ift-   At  the  time  of  this 
adion,  the  Levites  had  not  yet  been  confecrated  to  the  fervice  of  the  altar  ; 
they  bore  arms  like  the  reft  of  the  Ifraelites.     This  obfervation  ihould  not 
have  efcapcd  Mr.  Voltaire  at  leaft. 

ad.  Even  after  the  confecration  of  the  Levites  to  the  altar,  altho'  they 
were  exempted  from  military  fervice,  they  were  often  feen  fighting  in  our 
armies.  Phineas,  the  grandfon  of  Aaron,  diftinguifhed  himlelf  no  lefs  by 
his  courage  than  by  his  zeal.  He  went  to  battle,  and  fome  people  think 
that  he  commanded  the  Hebrews  when  they  vanquiflied  the  iVIidiariites. 
The  prieft  Benair.s  was  one  of  David's  heroes  and  general  of  Solomon's  ar- 
mies. The  exploits  of  the  Macabees  are  known,  and  in  later  times,  Jofe- 
ph'js  the  hiftorian,  was  at  once  a  prieft  and  one  of  the  greatcft  captains  of 
our  nation.     EJit. 

(1)  The  leali  attached  to  Mofts.     Mofes  was  of  the  tribe   of  Levi,  for  thi» 
reafon  this  tribe  muft  have  had  a  particular  attachment  to  him.     Edit. 

(2)  More  ajlonijhing  e-jcnts.  In  prophane  hlftory  we  fee  bandfuls  of  men 
cutting  tiioufand*  to  pieces  ranged  in  battle  array.  Here,  on  the  contrary, 
feveral  thoufand  men  armed  fell  fuddenly  upon  a  crowd,  unarmed,  and  en- 
tirely taken  up  with  that  prophane  feftival  whicli  they  were  celebrating. 
This  is  a  ftriking  circumftance  which  the  continuation  of  Mofes's  racital  and 
the  clear  and  precife  text  coiifirm.  Here  follows  this  text  as  we  read  it  in 
the  tranllation  of  one  of  your  moft  famous  Hebraifts  (Father  Ho:ib'igant ) 
"  Mofes  having;  feen  that  the  people  were  given  up  to  the  mad  joy  of  that 
*'  fcdival,  which  had  been  appointed  by  Aaron,  and  that  it  would  be  eafy  to 
"  cut  them  to  pieces,  If  they  were  attacked,  flood  up  at  the  gate  of  the  camp 
•'  and  cried  out,  who  is  on  the  Lord's  fide  ?  Let  him  come  unto  me,  and  all 
"  the  fon?  of  Levi  gathered  themfclves  together  unto  him,  and  he  faid  unto 
"them,"   &...  &;c.     Exodus,  Ch.  32.  v.   25. 

This  paffage  is  a  fufficient  anfwer  alfo  to  thofe  who,  like  the  author  of  the 
Philofophy  of  Hiftory,  fuppofing  that  this  maffacre  was  committed  without 
diilinc^ioti,  draw  fium  it  a  pretence  for  cenfuring  the  conduit  of  Mofes.  It 
is  cvultnt  th  It  this  flaui^hter  fell  only  upon  thofe  who  were  afiually  employed 
in  the  worllii)!  of  the  idol,  and  by  conlVquence,  upon  the  tranfgrcffors.  To 
aOinn  t)te  contrary  is  evidently  to  mifundtrlland  the  text,  or  grofsly  t« 
calumiiiatc  the  leirillator.     ^'«/. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N      J    E    W    S.  8^ 

Writers   are  but  weak  arguments  even  againft   our 
Vulgate  verfion  of  the  Bible. 

Now  if  they  prove  nothing  agalnfl  the  vulgate  ver- 
fion, what  fuccefs  will  they  have  againft  the  ancient 
Verfions,  even  the  Latin  verfions,  againd  the  Greek, 
SyriaCjChaldaick,  verfions  which  reduce  thofe  23,000 
men  to  3000  ?  What  fuccefs  will  they  have  elpeci- 
ally  againft  the  Hebrev/  text  ?  According  to  this 
text,  which  is  the  only  one  we  are  bound  to  defend, 
there  were  only  about  3000  men  flaughtered.  Is  it 
the  fault  of  the  facred  writer,  if  your  interpreters  have 
wrote  the  word  t'lcenty  inftead  oi about  ? 

Now  let  the  number  be  thus  reduced,  and  what 
becomes  of  the  impoffibility  of  23,000  men  being 
flaughtered  by  the  Levites^  or  of  the  neceiTity  of  a 
miracle  to  comprehend  it  and  of  all  the  empty  de- 
clamations of  your  critics  ? 

However,  fay  you,  there  remain  3000  men  kill- 
ed. Is  this  nothing  ?  1  his,  at  leaft,  fir,  may  be 
called  a  reafonable  objection.  Yet,  if  we  are  not 
miftaken,  the  difficulty  may  be  reduced  to  this  point, 
•whether  when  the  number  of  the  guilty  amounts  to 
3000,  God  can  puniili  them.  If  you  deny  this  pro- 
portion, produce  your  proof?,  we  promife  to  anfvv^r 
you. 

§  6.  Whether  it  is  a  fad  abfolutely  inconceivable^ 
that  the  Hebrews  fooiild  have  required  a  golden  calf  at 
the  foot  of  mount  Sinai,  for  adoration. 
■  l^oiir'  writers,  fir,  cannot  conceive  that  the  Jews 
could  ajk  for  a  golden  calf  for  adoration,  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  where  God  was  convcrfng  zuith  Mofes,  in  the 
midft  of  the  thunder  and  lightning,  and  the  found  of  the 
heavenly  trumpet  which  were  thenfeen  and  heard. 

But,  firft,  where  have  thofe  criticks  found  that 
the  fplendid  and  dreadful  appearances,  in  which  God 
was  pleafed  to  manifelt  himfelf  to  his  people,  lafted 
forty  days,  the  time  of  the  legifiators  ft  ay  on  the 
mount?  It  isfaid  indeed,  that  when  lie  went  up,  it 
was  covered  with  a  thick  cloud,  and  that  the  glory  of 
the  Lord,  which  appeared  on  the  fwnrnity    was  like 

U 


tG  I..    E    T    T    S    R    S       O    7 

a  hurnhvgfire.  But  that  the  ihunderings  and  the  Ught- 
2ij]7gs,  that  the  found  of  the  trinnpet^  that  even  the 
cloud  and  the  fire  which  iil'ued  out  of  it,  continued 
until  Mofes  came  down,  cannot  be  found  in  Exodus, 
or  in  any  other  facred  writer. 

Whillt  you  aggravate  the  crime  of  our  forefathers, 
by  dwelling  on  falfe  or  at  leaft  (i)  doubtful  circum- 
itances,  why  do  you  conceal  one  which  the  facred 
writer  mentions,  and  deferves  notice. 

True,  fir,  cur  fathers  were  at  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
ia'in  luhcreGod  ivas  fpcaking  to  Mcfes.  But  for  a  long 
time  they  knew  not,  they  faid,  ivhat  was  become  of 
Mofes,  Ihey  had  feen  him  feveral  times  before  going 
up  and  coming  down  from  the  mountain,  to  convey 
to  them  the  orders  of  the  Lord.  But  at  this  time,  on 
the  contrary,  he  had  not  returned  for  the  fpace  of 
more  than  a  month.  Amazed  at  his  long  abfence, 
and  net  knowing  what  might  have  happened  him, 
they  lod  all  hopes  of  feeing  him  again,  and  imagined 
themfelves  to  be  in  the  midfi:  of  thofe  deferts,  with- 
out chief,  laws,  or  worlhip.  Is  it  inconceivable  that 
in  fuch  circumftances,  thofe  ignorant  men,  left  to 
themfelves,  and  looking  upon  themfelves  as  forfaken 
by  their  God,  whom  they  no  longer  heard,  Ihculd 
have  fabricated  for  their  own  ufe,  one  of  thofe  vifible 
gods,  which  fo  many  other  nations  worUiipped'. 

Secondly,  Who  knows,  fir,  whether  in  their  in- 
tention, the  honours  which  they  paid  to  thi.^  idol, 
were  not  relative  to  God  their  deliverer,  and  whe- 
ther their  whole  euilt  did  not  confifl  in  havino:  wor- 
ihipped  him,  contrary  to  his  commands,  under  a  cor- 
poreal figure  ?  Learned  men   have  been  of  this  opi- 

(l)  Douhtftil ciia'K:J}jnces,  They  are  lookeJ  on  as  fuch  hy  mar.y  learned 
Ciirilliaiis,  and  aiming  others,  by  the  famous  !e  Clerc.  Acoordint^  to  hiin, 
tlie  whole  of  this  miyhry  fpcdncle  was  at  *n  end.  Even  the  eliiuJ  vm*  um 
li^nger  Teen,  cxceptpcrlaps  upon  lumc  hci^jht.  CLranca  cerr.crdur,  fays  h?, 
arTiplius  uiiicnitjt  Jtrt:  in  aliq^u  munlh  j"^o,  liut  even  fujipofe  all  thefecircuni - 
flurcts  wiic  true,  whrt  canduiions  could  v;e  draw  irt  hi  them  ?  We  well 
kuovv  tliat  tiie  nioft  txtr.ioriiiiiaiy  und  loi'vnidable  o!ij*>ils,  heconre  by  h-l.'t 
familial-  to  men.  Prcjudiire  which  judges  partially,  liyoidity  whi  h  rcafons 
not  ut  all.  and  iiKicJuiity  whi^'a  c.'viUat  everything,  may  £rodu.-e.thi»  cf- 


CERTAIN       J    E    V/    S.  87 

nlon,  and  the  text  feems  to  favour  it  ;  0  Jfrad^ 
fays  that  fenfelefs  people,  looking  on  the  idol,  there 
is  thy  God, 'who  brought  thee  out  of  Eo^ypt.  And  Aa- 
ron, when  he  is  proclaiming  the  feflival,  which  they 
were  to  celebrate,  tells  them,  "Jo-rnorroiv  is  a  fcaji  to 
the  Lord. 

Thirdly,  However  this  opinion  may  (land,  confi- 
der,  fir,  what  the  Hebrews  then  were,  from  whence 
they  came,  and  v/hat  notions  were  g'enerally  enter- 
tained of  idolatry.  They  had  juft  left  Egypt,  where 
this  worfhip  prevailed  ;  they  faw  it  fpread  forth  on 
^11  fides  ;  it  was  the  religion  of  the  mod  fiourifl~iing 
Hates,  and  of  the  nations  mofl  famed  for  wifdom. 
This  worfiiip,  which  feems  fo  extravagant  to  us  now, 
dazzled  them  by  its  brilliant  outndc.  Publick  au- 
thority protefted  it,  and  eftabli'.hed  cuftom  covered 
the  madnefs  of  it.  You  yourfelf  repeatedly  fay,  that 
the  Hebrews  were  a  barbarous,  fliipid,  fupcr/iiilous 
people.  Is  it  hard  to  conceive  that  men  of  this 
character,  hurried  away  by  the  example  of  their 
neighbours,  yielded  on  this  occafion,  to  their  incli- 
nation towards  a  kind  of  worfliip  then  in  repute, 
which  flattered  their  tafte  by  pompous  ceremonies, 
and  fellal  mirtli  ?  Do  you  not  knov;  what  a  mighty 
influence  ftrong  pre'iUdices,  the  power  of  culiom,  (i) 
the  empire  of  the  fenfes  have,  efpecinlly  over  vulgar 
minds  ?  P.eafon  then,  Hr,  conformably  to  your  own 
feelings,  and  allow  this,  either  that  our  forefathers 
v/ere  not  •  fux:h  men  as  you  reprefent  them,  or  join 
with  us  in  faying,  that  they  were  very  likely  to  fall  in- 
to idolatry  infuchfircumllances,  even  at  the  foot  of 
mount  Sinai. 


(l)  Ths  em'/tre  of  the  frrScs.  We  cannot  conceive  h.<T<v  t'le  Ifraelitr?  conul 
Le  fi)  Rupid,  as  to  worrtiip  an  image,  which  they  had  jufl  caft  with  their  own 
hands.  And  can  we  conceive  how  the  E-jyptians,  that  wife  nation,  the  Ro- 
mans, that  maananimous  people,  the  Greeks,  fo  pohre  and  clear-fip;hted  a 
people,  could  adopt  a  worfliip  fo  ahftirJ?  Our  fatlicr's  Juirri?<l  away  hy  the 
j'owcr  of  eximple  an'l  habit,  have  lomctinics  worftipped  the  idols  ■^f  the 
Gentiles.  But  if  ido'utcy  is  b-ini(hed  now  alnmfl  from  the  wliole  face  of  the 
earth,  if  it  can  be  looked  on  now  only  in  the  lijrht  of  inconceivable  extrava- 
ganvc,  to  wh.oni  ifi  this  owin<T  ?  Did  not  our  fathers  rc-cllahHfh  and  prtfcrvc 
the  true  r>ror (hip,  which  uU  otiisr  nations  iiad  abandoned.     Edit. 


8S  Lettersof 

§  7.  Of  the  tranfgrejjim  of  Aaron  and  of  Lis  pro- 
motion to  the  dignity  of  high-prieft. 

Further,  your  critics  "  think  it  extraordinary  that 
*'  Aaron,  who  was  the  mofl  guilty  of  all,  lliould  have 
*'  been  rewarded  for  that  very  crime  for  which  the 
"  reft  underwent  fo  dreadful  a  punifliment,  by  be- 
*'  ing  appointed  high-prieft,  whilfl  the  bloody  re- 
'^  mains  of  his  three  and  twenty  thoufand  brethren, 
*'.  were  heaped  at  the  foot  of  that  altar  on  which  he 
*'  was  going  to  facrilice.'* 

The  tranfgreilion  of  Aaron  was  certainly  grievous 
s.nd  abominable ;  but  1  pray  you  noble  critics,  Bo- 
lingbroke,  Tindall,  Collins,  &c.  confider  the  cir-. 
cumftances  he  finds  himfelf  in.  On  one  fide,  he  is 
as  ignorant  as  the  other  Hebrews,  whether  his  bro- 
ther vvill  ever  return,  and  whether  God,  who  is  now 
filent,  will  ever  again  deign  to  fpeak  to  his  people. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  is  hurried,  he  is  imperioufly 
commanded.  f//>,  fay  they,  make  its  Gods,  In  vain 
he  drives  to  calm  their  fpirits,  and  to  keep  them 
faithful  to  their  duty.  He  knows  their  violent  and 
impetuous  character,  O  fublime  philofophers  ! 
Your  fouls,  intrepid  and  flrangers  to  fear,  would  per- 
haps have  remained  unfhaken  in  thefe  circumftances, 
But  a  weak  mind  might  have  been  daunted  ivithout  a 
fiiiracle.  All  hearts  are  not  poifeiTed  of  that,  intre- 
pid courage,  which  philofophy  infpires. 

He  fJoouldbavs  died^  You  fay  (t)  in  another  place. 
He  fhould,  nobody  difputes  it.  But  do  we  always 
ad  as  we  (liouid  ?  And  do  we  pretend  to  fay  that 
he  was  innocent  ? 

Aaron,  the  m eft  guilty  of  all,  V/ho  told  you  this  ? 
Did  you  read  his  heart  ?  How  do  you  know  but  the 
dread  of  violence,  his  rcluftance  in  yielding  co  it, 
and  the  bitternefs  of  his  repentance  rendered  him 
more  worthy-  of  being  fpared  than  the  reft  ? 

He  tranfgrefles,  but  repsntance  foon  follows  the 
tranfgreilion.  The  fincerity  of  his  forrow,  and  the 
prayers  of  his  brother,   diiarm  the  Lord,  who  was 

(l)  In  at\oth^r ptacwn     Se?  the  Philofofby  of  Hiftory.     Au\. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  .    9g 

preparing  to  extirmlnate  him,  with  the  reft  of  the 
guilty.  He  obtains  his  pardon,  and  fometime  after 
is  raifed  to  the  facerdotal  office.  This  is  what  your 
writers  call,  being  rewarded  for  his  cri??ie.  You  muft 
allow,  fir,  that  although  this  expreffion  has  the  merit 
of  energy,  yet  it  has  not  entirely  that  of  juftnefs. 

Whiiji  the  bloedj  remains  of  i2)-fi^'^  rf  ^^^^  brethren. 
Sec.  What  a  defcription  is  this  fir  \  We  difcover 
your  tragic  pencil.  'J  his  pi6lure  is^moving,  but  is 
it  a  true  one  ?  In  reality  you  know  as  well  as  we  do, 
that  there  were  not  23,000  men  killed.  What  plea- 
fure  do  you  take,  in  giving  us  that  for  truth,  which 
you  know  in  your  heart,  is  falfe,  or  at  leaft  doubt- 
ful ? 

And  when  you  reprefent  thofe  bloody  remains,  heap' 
ed  up  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  are  you  ignorant  that 
feveral  months  had  elapfed,  fmce  this  bloody  aft  had 
been  done  ?  We  muil  allow,  that  by  bringing  thofe 
diilant  objecls  nearer  to  our  view,  the  fcene  becomes 
more  moving.  But,  ur,  I  pray  you  lefs  pathetick, 
and  more  exaftncfs.  The  fame  liberties  are  not 
granted  to  criticifm  as  to  poetry. 

Therefore  the  promotion  of  Aaron,  to  the  facer- 
dotal office,  after  his  tranfgreffion,  has  nothing  ex- 
traordinary in  it.  In  order  to  corxdemn  it,  as  your 
writers  do,  it  would  be  neceffiiry  to  prove,  that  God 
cannot  punidi  thofe  who  commit  fm,  and  pardon 
thofe  who  repent.  Do  you  mean  to  deprive  him  of 
this  right  ? 

§  8.  7 hat  the  account  of  the  adoration  of  the  goldcTt 
calf,  and  of  Aaron'' s  tranfgrejfton,  could  not  hai^'e  been 
added  to  the  books  of  Mofcs. 

Let  us  conclude  by  a  reflection,  which  muft  ftrike 
every  impartial  reader,  viz.  That  it  is  morally  im- 
poffiblc,  that  the  relation  of  thefe  two  facls,  fiiould 
have  been  added  to  the  books  of  Mofes.  Who,  for  in- 
flance,  could  have  added  the  tranfgreffion  of  Aaron? 
Could  it  have  been  an  author  not  of  the  facerdotal 
order  ?  But  would  the  priefts,  the  guardians  of  the 
fiicred  writings,  have  fullered  it  ?  Could  it  have  been 


^O'  LeTTERSGI"' 

one  of  that  order  ?  What !  would  the  priefcs  have 
corrupted  the  records  of  their  religion,  to  difhonour 
themfelves  without  reafon,  by  difiionouriiig  their 
chief  and  father  ? 

We  may  draw  the  fame  conclufion  with  refpe6t 
to  the  golden  calf.  If  this  is  an  apochryphal  fad:, 
added  to  the  books  of  Mofes,  when,  by  whom,  how 
was  this  done  ?  What  ftrange  iiitereit  could  prompt 
this  forger,  thus  to  caft  a  blemjfh  on  his  anceftors  and 
his  nation  ?  How  happens  it  that  the  forger  was  ne- 
ver detected  ?  Or  if  he  was,  how  comes  it  that  the 
forgery  was  not  blazoned  through  the  world  ?  By 
what  unaccountable  ftupidity,  has  this  people,  v^'ho 
was  always  zealoufly  attached  to  their  facred  writ- 
ings, per.nitted  any  one  to  falfify  the  truth  of  them, 
by  inferting  into  them,  not  miracles  worked  in  their 
favour,  but  calumnious  fafts,  fo  jiiameful  to  the  fa- 
thers aad  mortifying  to  the  children  ?  Kow  could 
thofe  fa6ls  be  tranfmitted  from  mouth  to  mouth  with- 
out contracli6lion  ?  How  came  they  to  pafs  from  .the 
Pentateuch  into  the  other  (i)  facred  books,  and 
even  into  the  (2)  facred  poetry  of  the  nation  ?  Can 
you  conceive  this,  fir,  and  do  your  writers  conceive 
it? 

I  admire  thofe  criticks.  The  authenticity  of  the 
books  of  Mofes,  appears  doubtful  to  them,  becaufe 
the  adoration  of  the  golden  calf  and  the  tranfgrelTion 
of  Aaron,  are  related  in  them.  But  for  this  reafon 
precifely,  every  im.partial  man  will   conclude,    that 

(i)  SaereJ  hools.  "  Thw  Ejjyptian  worftip,  fays  Mr.  Frcret,  Mofes 
«'  points  out  in  the  canticle,  whicli  he  compofed  a  little  time  before  his  death. 
•'  Tbty  bavc provoledthi-  Lord,  fays  he,  ^y  facrific'ng  to  Gods,ivhom  their  fathers 
*'  never  ivorjlifpcd.  With  this  fame  worfiiip,  the  prophet  F.zckicl  lij.braids 
«'  them  as  the  nioll  ancient  crime  of  tlie  jewilli  nation,  and  the  cerruption  of 
*'  their  youth.      F.Jii. 

{%)  Sacred  fieti-y  ff  the  mifiort.  We  read  in  one  of  the  pfalms  an  account  of 
the  feveral  trauijrrelfions  of  the  Hebrews.  The  adoration  of  the  golden 
calf  is  not  forjjotten  in  "it.  They  made  themfetvcs,{zyi  ii\^  pfalmirt,  «  (v.'//'m 
Horeb,  and  iL'orjLlppei  the  metal  ivhich  they  had  carved.  They  changed  ihii  lUry 
into  the  liltemft  tf  a  ,alj  that  talilh  grnfi.  NotwitftandinR  this,  the  author  oj  iht 
J'hilofuph^i  cf  Jlifory,  affirms,  that  no  prophet  eiier  mentioned  the  adomt'o^  (f  the 
frolden  calf.  Does  )ic  not  place  David  in  the  rank  ol"  prophets  ?  1  liis  chrillidn 
«ni!y  feenis  wtll  inftrudcd  in  his  religion  I     Ai>i. 


CERTAIN     Jews. 


9t 


thefe  writings  were  never  materially  altered.  Such 
fa(5ls,  inllead  of  being  added,  would  have  been  firft. 
(i)  expunged.  The  more  odious  this  double  forgery 
would  have  been,  the  more  inconceivable  it  is,  hovr 
a  forger  could  accompliih  it,  the  priells  fuITer  it,  and 
the  people  believe  it. 

Thus,  to  fum  up  what  we  have  faidon  this  fubjed: 
in  a  few  words.  Let  our  forefathers  be  allowed  to 
have  had  fome  ikill  in  chymidry.  Let  us  form  no 
falfe  fuppofitions  of  the  proportions  of  the  golden 
calf,  or  of  the  excellence  of  its  workmanfhip.  Let 
us  recollect  the  character  of  the  Ifraelites  and  the  cir- 
cumltances  they  v/ere  in.  But  above  all  let  us  flick 
to  the  text  of  fcripture.  Let  nothing  be  taken  from, 
or  added  to  it.  And  all  thefe  pretended  weighty  ob- 
jections, will  fall  of  themfelves. 

Behold,  fir,  hov/  eafy  it  is  to  anfwer  thofe  objec- 
tions ;  and  ailov/  this.  That  you  mufb  have  a  great 
contempt  for  your  readers,  if  you  think  that  they  can 
be  dazzled  by  them.  Did  you  imagine,  that  the 
great  names  you  quoted,  would  intimidare  them  ?  In 
this  refpeCt,  I  know  not  the  difpofitions  of  Chriftians; 
but  as  to  the  Hebrews,  before  they  believe  any  thing, 
they  v/eigh  authorities,  and  read  texts. 

AVe  are,  o:c.  &c. 

(i)  Ey.liung:d.  We  mayjuilj^e  of  this,  by  the  manner  in  which  Jofephos, 
his  adcJ.  He  does  not  tleny  the  faiit  ;  but  for  fear  of  cafting  an  odium  on 
the  tirft  of  our  high-priefls,  and  the  whole  nation,  before  the  uncirc umciftdLj 
ke  iias  made  ao  fcruple  of  iUiking  ic  out  ct  his  hifiory.     Aul. 


92  Lettersoit 

L  E  T  T  E  R     VI. 

In  which  another  objeBion  is  anfxvered,  with  reJpeB  fi 
the  adoration  of  the  golden  calf  and  the  trarifgreffion 
of  Aaron, 


I 


S  it  not  extraordinary,  fir,  that  writers  who  fo 
often  caliimniate  our  fathers,  and  impute  to  them, 
without  fcruple  or  foundation,  horrid  deeds,  {hook- 
ing to  thought,  yet  obftinately  refufe  to  believe  too 
real  a  crime,  which  the  mod  ancient  of  our  writing* 
relate,    and  all  our  records  atteft  ? 

We  met  with  one  obje^lion  more,  to  the  adoration 
of  the  golden  calf,  and  the  tranfgreffion  of  Aaronj 
in  fomenew  trafts  which  we  lately  perufed.  It  is 
drawn  from  the  fplendid  miracles,  to  which  the  He- 
brews had  been  fo  often  witneifes,  and  in  which  Aa- 
ron co-operated  with  his  brother. 

This  objection,  the  only  one,  which  can  with  any; 
fhewof  reafon  be  made  to  thefe  two  facls,  and  which 
might  be  extended  to  all  the  tranfgreffions  related  in 
the  Pentateuch,  fecmed  to  us  to  deferve  a  full  an- 
fwer,  and  it  (hall  be  the  fubjeft  of  this  letter.  It  is 
mortifying  to  children,  to  be  forced  to  return' to  the 
proof  of  their  father's  guilt.  But  every  thing  fliall 
give  place  in  our  hearts  to  the  love  of  truth.  Let  the 
tafk  be  ever  fo  unwelcome,  we  fliall  dill  continue  to 
pay  it  this  melancholy  tribute. 

"  Is  it  poffible,  fay  they,  Is  it  conceivable  that  Aa- 
"  ron  and  the  Hebrev^^s,  after  all  the  mighty  miracles 
«'  they  had  been  fome  of  them  witneiiei  to,  and  the 
"  former  even  the  co-operator,  fhould,  notwithfland* 
*'  ing  proftitute  their  incenfe  to  a  vain  idol  ?" 

It  mud  be"  allowed,  that  this  breach  of  faith,  as 
well  as  many  others,  of  which  our  fathers  were  guil- 
ty, has  fomething  in  it  extraordinary,  and  that  it 
{hews  this  people  had  a  very  drange  untowardnefs  of 
mind,  and  hardiiefs  of  heart.    And  agreeably  to  this, 


C    H    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    8.  93 

the  books  of  Mofes  are  full  of  fnarp  and  bitter  re- 
proaches for  thefe  things,  which  he  ceafed  not  to  caft 
on  them.  But  upon  what  grounds  do  the  authors  of 
thofe  tracts,  hold  thefe  fads  to  be  impolfible  ? 

They  judge  probably  of  our  fathers  by  themfelves. 
But  firlt,  they  wrong  themfelves  ;  they  are  polifhed 
people,  and  of  enlightened  underltandings.  But  the 
Hebrews  were  ignorant  and  barbarous. 

Befides,  are  they  competent  judges  of  their  own 
hearts  ?  Have  they  calculated  exactly,  how  many  ob- 
ftacles  to  the  efficacy  of  miracles,  might  proceed  from 
the  natural  frailty  of  man,  the  hurry  of  pallions,  the 
blindnefs  of  prejudice,  the  errors  of  a  prefumptuous 
philofophy,  which  raifes  difputes  on  every  thing,  and 
llrives  to  draw  every  thin^  within  its  narrow  perfpec- 
tive  S* 

Why  fhould  the  fight  of  fome  miracles,  work  upon. 
them  thofe  effeds,  which  the  daily  wonders  they 
xverc  witneOes  to,  cannot  produce  ?  The  great  fpec- 
tacle  of  nature,  for  inftance,  more  ftriking  in  the  eye 
of  wifdom,  and  more  awful  to  them  than  the  fea  di- 
vided, the  water  flowing  from  t\\z  bofom  of  rocks,  or 
mount  Sinai  refounding  with  the  heavenly  trump, 
and  the  crafh  of  thunder  ?  Let  them  examine  them- 
felves, and  try  whether  their  defires  have  been  always 
pure,  and  their  actions  innocent  !  What  !  Although 
filled  with  the  fublimeft  notions,  of  the  fanftity  of  the 
law  of  nature,  and  of  the  obedience  due  to  the  fu- 
preme  legiflator,  who  hath  written  it  on  their  hearts. 
Although  witneffes  to  his  works,  and  breathing  only 
by  his  good  will, they  dare  to  infringe  his  commands, 
and  yet  they  cannot  conceive  how  the  Hebrev/s  could 
tranfgrefs,  after  fo  many  miracles !  The  one  is  not 
m^re  inconceivable  than  the  other  j  there  is  the 
fame  blindnefs  on  both  fides. 

No,  fir,  neither  the  mod  flriking  miracles,  nor 
the  moft  fplendid  wonders  of  nature,  can  fix  man  in- 
variably, in  the  right  \vij.  Every  thing  depends  on 
the  difpofitions  of  thofe,  who  are  witneffes  to  them. 
Whild  fome  of  a  juit  way  of  thinking,  acknowledge 

N 


94  Lettkrs     of 

in  one  as  well  as  in  the  other,  the  power  of  the  al- 
mighty, and  the  evident  traces  of  his  wifdom  and 
goodnefs,  how  many  others,  of  a  perverfc  and  pre- 
fLimptuous  caft,  will  fee  nothing  in  them  but  juggling 
and  deceit,  blind  chance,  or  necciTary  combinations ! 
How  many  other  heavy,  thouj^htlefs  creatures,  flaves 
of  habit  and  paffion  look  on  them  with  a  ftupid  indif- 
ference only,  without  drawing  any  conckdions  from 
them,  for  the  regulation  of  their  lives  ;  or  elfe  con- 
tradict every  day,  in  their  conduct,  the  confequences 
wi. ich  they  had  drav/n  ! 

Laftly,  writers  who  look  upon  miracles  as  fo  many 
abfurdities,  and  whodeny  not  only  the  exigence,  but 
alfo  pofiibility  of  them,  do  not  appear  to  us  compe- 
tent judges  of  their  efEcacy  on  the  human  heart. 
Kence  thofe  mighty  oppcfers  of  rcvclaiicn^  agree  but  ill 
with  one  another  on  this  head.  If  fome  of  them  per- 
fuade  themfelves,  that  miracles  would  have  a  power 
irrefiftible,  others  are  of  a  very  different  opinion. 
Make  the  lame  ivalk^  fays  one  of  thofe  criticks,  or  the 
dumbjpeak^  raife  the  dead,  J  jhall  not  be  ( i  )Jhaken  by 
this.  Here  certainly,  we  have  a  man  well  convinced 
that  miracles  may  be  refilled,  and  v.'ho  probably 
"would  not  yield  to  them.  Who  knows  but  there 
might  be  among  the  Hebrews,  fome  heads  confrruCted 
like  this  phiicfopher^s^  who,  in  the  midft  of  falfe  rea- 
foning,  would  have  thought  themselves,  as  he  fyys, 
Ttisre  jure  of  their  arguments  than  of  their  eyes  ! 

1  he  wonders  therefore  worked  for  our  forefathers, 
and  before  their  eyes,  although  they  rendered  their 
tranfgreffions  more  criminal,  yet  did  not  make  them 
either  impolhble  ov  inconceivable.  Neither  mira^ 
cles,  nor  the  prodigies  of  nature,  captivate  the  will. 
And  he  that  has  wrought  them, or  ieen  them  wrought, 
ceafes  not,  on  that  account  to  be  a  man,  that  is  to 
fay,  a  weak  finful  being.     Muil  Jews  be  obliged  to 

(i)  Shaken    Obfcrve  the  nob'e  harmony  which  fubfifis  between  thofe  pen* 
t1emi-n.     I -vn.!,^    't  nQ^.  wh-ve'es    f:tysot'     I  JboulJ  tiot  Iijlal-.H  ly  tLczn^  i7i-^l 

another.    Thus  ihcfe  wife  nicB  agree-     £dii. 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N      Jf    E    W    9»  95J 

recall  tnefe  things  to  the  minds  of  ChriHians  ?  Is  it 
our  province  to  inform  them,  that  God  can  commu- 
nicate his  power  to  men,  without  depriving  them  of 
their  frailty  ? 

We  remain,  &c» 


Letters    op 


LETTER     VU. 

Whether  it  is  ■  incredible  that  the  Ifrae/iies,   when  they 
ijL'ere  at  Sinai^   could  defray  the  c^cpcnce  of  the  con^ 
Jiruclion  of  the    taberriacle^  and  of  the  other  luorks 
defcribed  in  the  book  of  Exodus . 


J^OW  can  we  believe,  fir,  that  our  fathers,  upon 

their  arrival  at  mount  Sinai,  were  deficient  in  the  art 
of  engraving  character?,  and  in  every  other  art,  even 
the  moil  necefl'ary,  if  the  tabernacle  and  the  other 
works  pertaining  to  worfhip,  were  then  executed,  as 
is  related  in  the  book  of  Exodus  ?  This  objeclion 
was  fo  flriking,  that  your  writers  could  not  help  mak- 
ing it  to  theml'elves,  and  endeavouring  to  anlv/er  it. 
We  (hall  firft  enquire  into  the  manner  in  which  they 
ftate  this  objecllcn  to  thcmfelves  ;  next,  into  their 
anfwer  ;  and  then  into  the  queftion,  whether  it  is  as 
incredible  as  they  pretend,  that  the  Ifraelites  could 
then  defray  the  expence  of  thefe  works. 

§  I .  That  the  ohjedion^  ivhich  thefe  critics  vw.ke  to 
ihemf elves ^  is  improperly  propofed.  Their  mijiake  with 
regard  to  the  pillars  of  the  tabernacle. 

You  fay,  fir,  that  "  if  it  is  objeded  to  thefe  critics, 
"  that  the  pillars  of  the  tabernacle  were  of  brafs^ 
"  and  the  chapiters  of  maffy  filver,  they  anfwer,  he. 
*'  he.*'  They  need  not  fear,  no  obje<!tion  will  be 
made,  that  the  pillars  of  the  tabernacle  were  of  brafs. 
Why?  For  this  plain  reafon,  Becaife  they  were  ?2ei 
of  brafs.  If  ysur  critics  think  fo,  they  are  millaken. 
They  were  of  (i)  fetim-wood.  Read  the  text  in 
any  verfion  you  pleafe,  and  you  will  be  convinced. 
This  is  alfo  true  of  their  chapiters.     They  were  not, 

(l)  Seiim-imxJ.  ■  This  fctim  or  fittim-wood,  was  probably  a  kind  of  aca» 
cia,  which  grows  moftly  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  dcferts  of  Aral)ia.  It  ha»  a 
fill?  black  coinijr,  and  is  very  like  tbory.     Sc-f  Tlitvciiot.     /-ht. 

'I'hcJc  trees,  accirdni^  to  -it.  Jcrom,  reftn.ble  the  wliitc-thorn  in  their 
colour  auu  leaves.  Tin  v  <;rovv  to  fncli  a  iizc,  that  lliej-  ul'cU  tli«m  for  prtib- 
fceams.     &^/'.' 


CERTAIN     Jews.  ^7- 

^s  your  writers  fay,  of  majfyfiivsr^  but  of  fetiin-wood 
overlaid  with  gold. 

It  is  true,  fir,  that  there  were  (i)  fixty  pillars  more, 
not  in  the  tabernacle,  but  in  the  court,  which  is  a 
different  thing,  that  were  intended  to  bear  the  cur- 
tains which  inclofed  it  round.  If  you  meant  thefe 
pillars  at  fir  ft,  you  fliould  have  expreffed  yourfelf 
more  clearly.  And  fecondly,  even  thefe  pillars 
were  no  more  of  brafs  than  the  former. 

I  allow  that  your  vulgate  verfion  feems  to  favour 
the  opinion  that  thefe  pillars  were  of  brafs ;  but  if 
it  fays  fo  (2)  it  is  wrong.  This  is  one  of  the  errors 
with  which,  you  know,  this  verfion  abounds,  even 
according  to  the  opinion  of  your  own  divines. 

Indeed  it  is  not  probable  that  Mofes  would  have 
wifhed  to  incumber  the   Ifraelites,  in  their  marches, 
with   the  weight  of  fo  many  brafs  pillars.     It  is  re- 
markable,   that  no  account  is  given  of  them,  in  the 
general  lift   of  the  works  which  were  formed  out  of 
this  metal.     Would  he  have  forgot  them,  if  they  had 
been  of  this  metal?  And  agreeably  to  this,  the  He- 
brew text  does  not  fay   it.     Your  ableft  commenta- 
tors agree  in  this  point  with  ours.     They  think  that* 
all  thofe  pillars,  which  you  fay  were  of  brafs,  were 
only  of  wood.     Confult  the  verfions   of  the  learned 
le  Clerc,  and  of  the  learned  father  Houbigant,  and 
you  will  find  the  text  rendered  in  this  fenfe  by  them. 
As  to  the  chapiters  which  you  make  of  maffy-fil'very 
.they  were  not  chapiters  of  the  Doric,  Ionic,  or  Corin- 
thian order.     Moles  probably  conftrufted  (3)  his  ta- 
bernacle, and  his  pillars  in  the   Egyptian   tafte,   to 
which    he   and  his   Hebrews  had  been  accuftomed. 
Now  the   Egyptians  were  not  then,  at  lead  as  you 

(i)  Sixty /^ilfart.  They  reckoned  56  in  the  circumference  of  the  court, 
and  4  at  the  entrance,     ^jut. 

(z)  It  is  -ziTon^^r.  It  may  be  ohferved  by  what  we  have  faid,  (and  the  ob- 
fcrvation  will  often  recur)  that  one  of  Mr.  Voltaire's  ftratajjems,  is  to  at- 
tribute to  the  text,  the  errors  of  the  verfions,  and  to  both  text  and  verfions 
the  blunders  of  the  commentators.  But  when  a  man  dcai»  fairly  ha»  he  rc- 
courl'e  to  thtfe  little  fubttrfugcs  ?  Edit. 

(3)  /f;j  u'..ri!^J<.    Sectiic  ctnimei.ts  ef  Ic  CItrc  ujion  iiiodus  :  ipenccfs 


()8  Lettersop 

fay,  fuch  Ikilful  architeds.  They  ivere  not  acquahttcdt 
IV dh  ihe  be 01*1  y  and  richnejs  of  arcbifeSfure^  mitil (i) 
the  time  of  the  Ptolemies ^  and  there  is  fome  di  (lance  be- 
tween the  Ptolemies  and  Mofes.  Add  to  this,  that 
thefe  chapiters  were  not  intended  to  fupport  vaft 
edifices,  iuperb  porticoes,  entablatures,  pediments, 
&c.  &c.  1  hey  were  intended  to  fupport  only  hooks 
?j)d  curtains,  therefore  it  was  not  neceffary  that  they 
Hiould  be  fo  foHd  :  Hence  one  might  juftly  infer 
that  thefe  chapiters  would  not  have  cod  much,  even 
had  they  been  of  maffy  filver. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  they  were  not  of  filver.    A- 
greeably  to    this,  it    is   related  in  (2)   Exodus,  that 
1775  fliekels  of  filver  w^ere  laid  out  on  the  chapiters, 
and  other  ornaments  of  thofe  piliars,  that  is  to  fay, 
fomething  lefs  than  2000  French  crowns.     You  f  ^e 
plainly  that  this  fum  would  not  have  fufHced  to  make 
fixty   fine  Greek  chapiters  of  ;72i7^y7/i;fr,  wiih  tiiCT 
plinth,   volutes,   or  acanthus  leaves?   But    it  might 
fuffice  to  cover  the  tops  of  thefe  pillars  with  platts-of 
filver,  :;.nd  to  decorate  them  with  fome  circles  or  fil- 
lets of  the  fame  metal  :  And  to  this   your  writers 
fnould  have  reduced  thofe  chapiters   of  niaffy  ftlver^ 
which  they  have  imagined,  in  order  to   give  them- 
felves  trouble.     They  would  then  have  agreed,    not 
only  v/ith  the   moil  learned  commentators  and   the 

(0  Tie  time  of  the  Ptolemhi.  Before  this  era,  the  Egyptians  accordinp;  to 
Mr-  Voltaire,  notivUhHaudii'gil^cit  pulaces  and  their  temples,  cf  ivbicb  people  have 
fp:ik;niv'thf!ich  eiithujiifm,  were  nothing  but  Wretched  mafons.  When  thefe 
famous  monuments  hl-xt  heen  hid  before  this  great  man  asobjed»of  admira- 
ti(in,he  raife.i  his  ihouider- with  Icorn- 

Notwithftanding  the  greateft  part  of  the  moft  learned,  anc'ent  and  mo- 
dern writers,  and  the  hell  informed  travellers,  when  they  confidercd  thofe 
monuments,  inftsad  of  faifing  their  Ihoulders  with  fcorn,  were  nruck  witlt 
a^r.iratidn.  And  we  know  befidcs  prtat  zrcl.itcvfls,  who  fpeak  with  enco- 
miums of  the  Egyptian  architeiflurc  which  Mr.  Vnkaire  defpifcs.  Such  dif- 
ference there  is  in  taOes,  fuch  oppofition  in  opinions!  To  be  fure,  not  to 
fpealt  of  Herodotus,  Diod(5rus  Siculus,  Strabo,  Tacitus,  among  the  arxicnts  ; 
Rollin  and  IJoffiiet  among  the  moderns  ;  Belon,  Thevvnot,  Charles  l.ebrun, 
&C.  &c.  Very  lately,  the  CMnfui  Maiict,  dodlor  Pocock.  captain  Norden,^«  • 
all  thefe  writers,  tra%'eller!,,  and  artlfts,  with  many  others,  wtre  enthuj'wftt. 
Mr.  Voltaire  alone,  has  feen  things  in  their  true  light  !     Aut. 

(2)  //;  £.Yci<//^.  Seechap.  38.  It  appears  thefe  i  775  flu  ktU  were,  ifnat 
th<!  whole,  yet  ths  grcatctl  part  of  the  moacj-  laid  cut  on  thofe  ortlament* 
EMt. 


CERTAIN     Jews. 


99 


bed  verfion-,  but  al'b  with  ihe  original  text,  which 
exprefsly  fays,  and  that  more  than  once,  that  the 
chapiters  of"  thofe  pillars  were  overlaid  wifb  Jthcry 
and  which  does  not  fay  any  where,  that  they  wer(^ 
of  mafjj  filvcr. 

Therefore  the  objedion  of  thofe  critics  is  impro- 
perly propofed,  and  it  gives  us  reafon  to  think,  that 
when  they  wrote  on  the  fubjed  they  were  not  well 
informed.  The  pillars  fhould  not  have  been  the  mat- 
ter of  the  objeftion,  but  the  tabernacle  and  every 
thing  that  belonged  to  it ;  the  ark  and  the  altar  of 
incenfe,  overlaid  with  gold,  the  candleltick  of  fevea 
branches,  the  mercy  feat,  and  the  chcrubims  of  very 
pure  gold,  the  precious  (tones,  the  wool  died  with  the 
fineft  colours,  in  a  word,  all  rliofe  magnificent  works 
which  Mofes  defcribes,  and  w  hich  give  us  fo  high  an 
idea  of  the  progrefs  of  the  arts,  in  an  age  in  which 
Greece  was  yet  barbarous.  Thefe  are  the  thin-^s, 
fir,  which  they  ought  to  have  mentioned,  if  thev  had 
pofieffed  more  fmcerity  or  knowledge;  and  thefe 
would  be  much  better  proofs,  than  their  pretended 
brafi  pillars,  and  their  chapiters  of  majfy  filver,  that 
our  fathers,  at  the  foot  of  mount  Sinai,  had  not  lofb 
all  their  arts  and  artiils,  and  that  they  were  far  fronx 
being  reduced  to  that  indigence  in  which  you  fuppofe 
them  to  have  been. 

§  2 .  Falfe  anfwer  given  by  Mr.  Vol/aire's  critics  : 
Wejhew  that  the  works,  of  which  Mofes  [peaks,  were 
executed  in  the  wildernefs,  and  not  put  off  to  another 
feafon. 

Tour  critics,  you  fay,  arfwer  thai  thefe  works  may 
have  been  appointed  in  the  wilderncf,  but  that  they 
were  not  executed  until  happier  times. 

What  is  the  exacl:  meaning  of  this,  fir  ?  Do  they 
mean  only  that  a  part  of  thefe  works  was  not  exe- 
cuted in  the  wildernefs.  Be  \i  fo  :  The  other  part 
then  was  executed  there.  But  do  they  not  fee  that 
thisconceffion  alone  would  overturn  all  that  thev  ad- 
vance ?  How  could  the  Ifraeiites  execute  even  part 
of  thefe  works,  if  they  had  been  in  the  ^^reated  indi- 
eence,  and  had  loll  ail  their  arts  ? 


lod  Litters     of 

Will  they  fay  that  none  of  thefe  works  were  exe- 
cuted in  the  wildernefs,  and  that  they  were  put  off 
to  more  happy  times?  But,  ill:,  Not  only  the  Pen- 
tateuch, but  all  the  facred  writings,  the  whole  hiflo- 
ry  of  the  Jews,  fuppofe  at  lead  a  part  of  them  to 
have  been  executed  there,  sdly.  Why  would  the 
fcripture  have  fpoken  fo  fully  of  thefe  works  at  a  pe- 
riod in  which  they  did  not  take  place,  and  made  no 
mention  of  them  at  all,  at  the  time  when  they  were 
made  ?  3dly,  if  they  were  not  then  executed,  where 
do  you  place  thofe  heippy  times  of  which  you  fpeak  ? 
Under  Mofes,  the  judges,  the  kings  ?  Thefe  queftions 
would  puzzle  you  more  than  any  man,  fir,  who  be- 
lieve that  the  Jews  were  flill  more  unhappy  under 
the  judges  than  in  the  wilderneis  ;  that  our  greatefl 
kings,  David  with  all  his  wealth,  and  Solomon  in  all 
his  glory,  being  willing  to  build  a  fuperb  temple  to 
the  God  of  their  fathers,  could  erecl  nothing  but  a 
country  barn^  and  that  the  mod  happy  period  of  the 
nation  was,  when  a  yeiv  became  farmer-general  to  Pto- 
lomy  Epiphanes.  Mult  we  carry  forwards  fo  far,  e- 
ven  as  that  time,  the  confl:ru£lion  of  the  tabernacle, 
the  ark,  and  all  thofe  magnificent  works  which  be- 
longed to  them  ?  Obferve,  fir,  into  what  ablurdities 
you  throw  yourfelf. 

But  let  us  not  refl:  in  conje<5lures.  Let  us  open 
the  ( I )  book  of  Exodus,  and  we  fhall  there  fee  Mo- 
fes, not  only  receiving  a  moft  minute  order  for  mak- 
ing thefe  things,  but  we  (hall  likewife  fee  the  execu- 
tion of  this  order,  related  with  (2)  like  exadnefs. 
We  fhall  there  find  this  wife  legiflator  exhorting  our 
fathers  to  confecrate  unto  the  Lord,  on  this  occa- 
fion,  their  moft  precious  effects,  then  chufing  the  bed 
artifts,  giving  them  the  defigns,  infpecling  the  work, 
receiving  the  rich  prefents  v/hich  they  vie  with  each 
other  in  heaping  on  him,  and  with  fuch  eagernefs, 
that  he  is  obliged  to  forbid  them  to  bring  any  more. 
We  (hall  there  fee  that  when  the  work  is  finifhed, 

(t)  See  chapters  a6th,  27tli,an'1  2<?th. 

(x)  Sec  thapters  i6th,  ayth,  28th  ami  29tk. 


eERtAiN     Jews.  roi 

God  commands  him  to  fet  up  the  tabernacle,  and  lay 
in  it  the  ark,  the  golden  candlellick,  ^x.  &c.  and  that 
thefe  orders  were  executed  on  the  iird  month  of  the 
fecond  year,  after  their  going  out  of  Egypt.  Laftly, 
we  fliall  find  that  the  whole  remainder  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  all  our  writings  declare,  that  even  then 
the  ark  was  made,  and  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the 
Utenfils  belonging  to  worfiiip  :  And  your  critics 
come  and  tell  us  cooly,  that  thefe  works  were  not 
Executed  until  more  happy  times,  which  they  ima- 
gine, without  being  able  to  point  them  out.  To 
which  of  tiiefe  are  we  to  give  the  preference?  To  a 
relation  fo  particular  and  fo  poiitive,  or  to  a'Tertions 
void  of  proofs  ? 

§  3.  State  of  th:  llebrc^xs  ivhcn  they  carne  to  mount 
Sinai.  Whether  it  is  ineredible  that  they  could  defray 
the  expence  of  the  various  laorks  mentioned  in  the  book 
9f  Exodus  ? 

But  fay  your  criticks,  the  Hebrezas  in  the  ivi/der- 
nefsy  lucre  a  poor  people,  in  loant  of  every  thing. 
Is  if  credible  thai  they  could  defray  the  expence  of 
all  thafe  mardificcnt  'works  ? 

Let  us  not  fall  into  the  millake  which  thefe  wri- 
ters would  cunnincjiv  draw  us  into.  That  our 
fathers,  after  having  wandered  thirty  or  forty  years 
in  the  wildernefs,  fhould  have  been  unable  to  bear 
the  expence  of  fo  much  magnificence  ;  this  might 
be  -,  but  is  this  the  point  in  quefiion  ?  Not  at  all ; 
the  queftion  is,  fir,  to  know  whether  they  were 
able  to  bear  this  expence  when  they  arrived  at 
mount  Sinai,  that  is  to  fay,  three  or  four  months 
after  their  departure  from  Egypt  ? 

Nov/  this  people  had  inhabited,  during  two 
hundred  years,  before  their  departure,  the  mod 
fertilj  province  of  this  rich  and  Hourirning  country. 
They  had  been  intelligent  hulbandmen,  laborious 
artilts,  diligent  traders,  and  had  for  a  long  time  en- 
joyed the  favour  of  their  fovereigns,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  governnient.  Even  that  opprelfion  which 
their    prodigious    incrcnfe    brought    on    them   had 

0 


tOi  L    £    T    T    E    R    S^      O    9 

not  prevented  them,  in  peaceable  times,  from  a?-* 
tending  to  (i)  commerce  and  the  arts,  and  fronx 
living  in  a  kind  of  affluence,  which  they  after- 
wards (2)  too  ofren  regretted.  'i  hey  had  at  lafb 
left  Egypt  :  But  how  ?  After  having  had  time  ta 
iell  what  they  could  not  carry  with  them,  they 
drove  away  their  flocks  and  bealts  of  burthen,; 
and  had  full  liberty  to  remove  their  precious  ef- 
fecls.  To  theie  their  own,  they  had  added  the 
elTe£is  of  their  opprefibrs,  from  whom  they  had 
borrowed  a  number  of  golden  vai'es,  of  jewels,  fluffs 
ol  great  value,,  &c.  v.'liich  they  took  away  with- 
them.  In  a  word,  they  had  gone  according  to  the- 
promife  made  by  the  Lord  to  /^braham,  and  repeated 
fmce  to  Mofes,  to  (3), 'tc/V/y  grcai  wsalib,  or  as  the 
pfalmift:  exprefles  it;(4)  ivilb  go!d  and  fiher.  Was 
this,  fir,  a  poor  nation  ?  And  is  it  incredible  that 
this  people,  three  months  after  their  departure 
from  Egypt,,  fiiould  have  been  able  to  bear  the 
expences  mentioned  in  Exodus. 

According  to  the  eflimate  of  one  of  your  bed 
(5)  commentators,  and  that  of  one  of  your  moll, in- 
telligent writers  in  (6)  fuch  matters,  the  fum  total 
efgold,  filver,  brafs,  jewels,  he.  laid  out  in  thefe 
works,  would  fcarcely  amount  to  five  millions  of 
livres,    and  it  would  not  exceed   feven,  according  to 


(l)  Commcrct  ana  the  arft.  Tfiey  Dltifl  fiave  atfericTed  to  them,  fires' 
;^'l:ifi.s  (outid  among  tlic  Htbrcv.s,  cnrpentcrb,  founders,  goldriniihs,- 
tngravtrs  nn  prcrioiis  f. puts,  ccc.  &c     F,.'it. 

{z)  'lof  often  regrctifi.  fV/jin  ice  fit  by  the  f:'Jhps*s,  (fay  they)  ffn<V  ■«■/'(■/« 
'Ouf  didciit  Bread  to  the  full  :  We  nniewbir  the  Jifo  tfhch  ive  did  eut  in  £^\ff 
J'-er-'y.       'The  luctimhers  and  tie  r/;elons,    <^;.      l^c.      ice    Exod.   Ch.    1 6.   V.    3. 

Num.  Ch.   rr    V.  5'. 

ii)  '•  ith great  ijculih.  See  G<.n.  Clup.  25.  V.  14.  Exodus,  Ch.  3.  V. 
ai.     Idem. 

(4)'  JViTh  nrM  axil  ftl-ver  Sf-e  Pfalm  104.  F.t  ediut'it  r'>s  cum  ar^rnlo  fjf 
atire,  &c  Kli-m.  O'lftrve  tfiat  in  Moft;''s  recital,  all  the  faCls  arc  con- 
uedltd  Vihh  one  another  ;  the  jjriimiCe  made  t<i  Alrahani  and  rc'ncv\t(i 
to  Moles  ;  the  lonj;  rcfuleiice  of  the  Ifraciites  in  fo  rich  a  country  ;  the 
bicfiing  if  Heaven  ftcd  ujion  their  lahoiirs  the  JcourvJcs  iiilvllcd  ou 
Eijypt,  which  malte  that  people  wiill  for  ciic  dt.-i>atiurc  of  lI.c  liebrews^ 
ik.c.  i<.c.    Ail  is  cotinedtec!.     Ed^t, 

{k)      Bf'l   C',>K!.ient,ilari        I).      Caltnet.        Aut. 
\(j}     Iiifuth  mitten.     M,    rdlotitc.     W. 


CERTAI^N        JeTTS.  IOJ 

Hire  calculations  of  the  learned  Cumberland  and 
I3ei*nard.  Do  you  think  this  too  fmall  a  funi  ?  Raifc 
it  to  eight  or  even  nine  millions  if  you  pleafe.  The 
valuation  of  the  tabernacle,  and  of  the  things 
belonpiuH  to   it    at    nine    millions,     is    furely    full 

Now  it  is  generally  computed,  and  you  yourfelf 
often  repeat  it,  that  when  our  fathers  left  Kgypt, 
they  amounted  to  (i)  more  than  two  millions  of 
fouls,  without  reckoning  the  Itrangers  that  accom- 
panied them  in  their  flight.  Let  us  except  out  of 
this  number  all  the  iirangers,  and  more  than 
1700,000  fouls  :  Let  us  fiippofe  that  only  300,000 
ifraelites  confecrated  to  God  on  this  occafion  the 
fifth  part  of  their  property,  there  is  nothing  in  this 
but  what  the  fervour  of  their  zeal  and  joy  for  their 
deliverance  might  excite  them  to,and  let  us  give  each 
of  them,  upon  an  average,  only  150  livres,  of  which 
75  (hall  be  fuppofed  to  be  their  own,  and  "] ^  more, 
what  they  took  from  the  (2)  E-jyp'ians.  Thefc 
fiippofitions -are  certainly  no  way  exorbitant.  Now 
if  you  multiply  300,000  by  150,  you  will  have  a  fum 
total  of  45,000,000,  Divide  this  number  by  5,  and 
you  will  have  exactly  nine  millions,  that  is  to  fay 
fufficient,  or  more  than  fufficient,  for  making 
the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  other  worl-vS  delcribed 
bv  Mofes, 

§  4.   Confutation  offomc  objcflions  'which  jnay  be  mach 
io.  the  foregoing  calculations. 

What  can  you  objetu,  lir,  to  the  foregoing  calcula- 


(i)  More  tljn  ttv  mVHnns.  Tt  appears  tliat  Mr.  Voltaire  and  h'ts 
•enters  have  not  exaclly  deter  mined  the  nuniher  of  the  Ifraciitcs  wli» 
■went  out  ot  Eijypt.  So  uetinies  they  make  them  amonnt  to  3l)oiit  tv/-n 
niil.'ions,  foiiictimcs  to  two  millions  and  more,  I'oinetimcs  they  rife  to  il;tte 
milJions  ir.creaf(n,j  or  diminifliinjr  according  to  their  prel'c^iit  neccflitr. 
Thefe  variations  may  be  very  convenient  j  but  however  a  million  more  or 
lefs,   in  two  or  three  is  no  tni?e.     £Mt. 

{%)Frriin  the  E^ypi'iam.  To  this  mijfiif  he  added  the  fpoils  of  thofe  oppref- 
fors  which  wtre  call  hy  the  wavts  on  the  banks  of  the  Red  Sta, 
-where  the  Ifraelites  were;  and  the  f]'o:ls  which  thty  coi.ld  take  froi.'t 
the  A'lialelcitcs  after  they  had  vanquiflisd  them.  The  hiflorian  Jofcphisj 
hvaii/rji  both  fhcXc  a»iOBUt  to  u  ^rcat  funi.     £Mt. 


:e 


304  Letters     of 

tions  ?  Would  you  rejeQ;  the  valuations  of  Calinet 
and  Pelleticr,  becaufe  one  of  them  was  a  Pvlonk,  and 
both  of  them  Frenchmen  ?  But  we  will  produce  you 
writers  Vv'ho  are  neither  Frenchmen  nor  Monks,  even 
tv.'o  Englifnmen. 

This  Bernard  and  Cumberland  (i)  were  good  fort 
of  men,  (2)  you  fay.  Yes,  fir,  and  they  v/ere  be- 
fides  able  men,  and  held  a  diilinguifhed  rank  among 
.the  learned.  They  were  deeply  verfed  in  antiquity, 
aiKi  had  examined  the  fubjecl  which  they  treated  to 
the  bottom,  of  which  your  writers  have  probably  but 
a  very  fuperhcial  knowledge. 

Let  the  valuations  of  thefe  learned  men  fiand  as 
they  may,  we  have  exceeded  them.,  and  added  to 
them  at  lead  two  millions.  And  we  are  certain  that 
workmen  might  be  found,  who  would  v/illingly  un- 
dertake for  nine  milHons  to  make  all  the  works  men- 
tioned in  Exodus,  provided  only  that  we  confined 
ourfelves  to  the  defcriptlon  given  of  them  by  Mofes, 
and  did  not,  as  your  criticks  do,  change  wood  into 
brafs,  and  light  ornaments  of  filver  into  7naffy'  Jihci\ 
Perhaps  you  may  think  that  we  value  the  eiledls 
which  our  fathers  took  from  the  Egyptians  too  high, 
when  we  eftimate  them  at  75  livres  for  each  of  our 
300,000  IfraeHtes,  who  have  been  picked  out  of  two 

(i)  Cumberland.  Richard  Cumberland,  D.  D.  Blfliop  of  Peterborough, 
diOinguiflied  himfelf  by  his  great  learning:.  He  imclerRood  all  the  Greek  and 
Latin  authors,  philofophy  and  niathemaricks,  in  all  their  brsnclies  :  He  ap- 
plied himffif  far  a  long  time  to  an  enquiry  into  the  origin  of  ancient  nations 
and  the  lludy  of  the  text  of  the  facred  writings,  and  the  ancient  interpreters, 
in  their  originid  languages.  They  fay  he  learned  Coptick  at  the  aye  of  gj. 
He  has  left  us  two  Varncd  treatifes,  one  upon  ihe  laxv  of  nature.,  the  other  up- 
on the  ivtii'kts  and  rmijurcs  of  ths  Hcbrcivs,  We  have  reafon  to  be  offendid 
when  we  Iff  certain  writers,  with  their  flirr.fy  erudition,  tr.ating  thofe  great 
riv-'O  fo  cavalierly.  ,  Ho\vever  the  Englifh  need  not  he  furprized  at  feeing  their 
learned  countrymen  treated  in  this  maiiner;  fmce  all  the  Iciirned  among  ti«c 
French  have  ahexdy  fliared  this  fate.     Edit. 

(2)  Toufay.  Set  Philofoph  DitS.  BcrnairJ.  He  was  an  EngliHi  man  born 
in  the  county  of  Worteftcr,  one  of  the  mofr  cniinent  men  in  every  part  of  the 
belles  lettres.  He  undcrfto\)d  CJreek,  Hebrew,  and  almoft  tU  the  Oriental 
languages,  niathcmaticks,aftronoiny  :  He  had  a  deep  hnowlcdge  of  antiquity 
and  criiicifm  ;  V.'e  have  fcveral  works  of  his,  and  amongft  others,  an  excel- 
lent treatife  on  lie  -u-c'ights  and mcnfurcs  ef  :hc  Or'nntah  :  This  is  to  be  found  ia 
Er.  Pocock's  coma'.cnt  on  the  prophet  Hofea:  But  the  author  has /luce  msiic 
great  additions  to  itj  auJ  has  publiilicd  it  fv^^aratclj.    Rdit. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  105 

millions  of  fouls,  of  which  this  people  confiilcd.  But, 
fir,  does  it  require  many  jewels  of  gold,  many  rich 
{luffs,  and    much  fine  linen  to  make  up  y^  livres  ? 
Do  you  think  that  our  Hebrews,  on  this  occafion, 
did  not  '-ifs  every  art  to  get  out  of  the  Egyptians  this 
kind  of  recompence  for   all    their  labours  ?  Or  that 
the  Egyptians,  looking  upon  them,  after  many  pro- 
digies, as  a  people   protected  in   an  efpecial  manner 
by  heaven,  dreading  them,  (i)  wifning  their  depar- 
ture, flattering  themfelves  perhaps  with  their  return, 
did  not  hailen  to  lend  them  what  they  afked  ;  more 
efpecialiy  asGcd  had  difpofed  their  hearts  to  this,  and 
for  this  \iuri^o[c  ■gL7vc  favour  (^2)  to  bis  people. 

Will  you  fay  that  our  other  eftimate  is  too  high, 
that  out  of  two  millions  of  people  there  were  found 
300,000,  who  poiTeffed   upon  an  average,  each  25 
crowns.     But,  fir,  take  out  of  any  flate  you  pleafe, 
even  out  of  thofe  where  we  are  the  mofl  cruelly  treat- 
ed, more  than  two  millions  of  Jews  of  every  condi- 
tion, labourers,  tradelinen,  merchants,    &:c.  &;c.  Let 
them  have  time  to  fell  fuch  elFecls  as  they  cannot  car- 
ry with  them  :  Let  them  go  freely,  and  with   their 
whole  property  :  I  infifl:  on  it,  out  of  whatfoever  ffate 
you  take  them,  and  into  whatfoever  ftate  you  remove 
them,  that  within  the  fpace  of  three  months  after 
their  arrival,  there  ftall  be  300,000  of  them  pofief- 
fed,  upon  (3)  an  average,  of  the  value  of  25  crowns. 

( l)   I'Vifcing  thtlr  departure-  Egypt  laas  glad  «/  their  departure,  fays  the  pfalm- 
ift.     Ait. 

(l)   Fuv»ur  to  bit  people,     Peticrunl  ah    Egyptiis  vafa   aurea,  "ve^cmgue  p/uri* 
in:im,  dtminus  aulem  dedii gratlam  ut  comwoJareut  els.  £xo(l.   Id. 

(3)  ^-^p*n  ""  pverage.  We  may  form  a  judgment  of  this,  by  what  baa 
happTieJ  to  the  Jewi(h  nation  in  thofe  btter  time*.  I'hey  have  been  ba- 
nilhed,  altho'  in  fniallcr  numbers,  from  various  ftates,  and  the  decline  of 
trade  and  fall  of  the  revenue,  which  was  the  cfftifl  of  their  baniftiment,  foon 
occafioned  them  to  be  recalled  ;  which  is  a  clear  proof  th.it  they  took  away 
great  funis  with  thcni.  By  what  fatality  mull  this  nation,  which  always- 
carried  fo  much  wealth  out  of  ths  countiies  wliich  it  ijuitted,  have  left 
Eg-ypt  alone  in  a  flate  of  want  ? 

Let  us  produce  the  example  of  the  Spanifh  Jews  only.  After  many  cruel 
j-crfccntioDS,  which  followed  each  other  in  a  quick  fucceflli^n,  they  wers 
driven  from  thofe  kinjrdoms  by  the  ediil  of  Ferdinand  and  Ifabella.  Four 
months  only  were  a'.lov.ed  thcai  to  prepare  for  their  departure:  E-vm  this 


laS  Letters     of 

13o  you  imagine,  fir,  tliat  our  anceflors  were  Icfs 
indullrious  and  atbive  than  their  delcendants  :  Or 
that,  jii{l  excepting  the  favour  of  not  throwing  our 
children  into  ^the  river,  we  are  more  favourably  treat- 
ed than  they  were  in  fuch  countries  as  tolerate  us, 
wkere  we  pay  fo  dearly  for  that  fmall  portion  of  un- 
Tvholefom.e  air  we  are  permitted  to  breathe. 

But  without  inftancing  our  fathers  or  ourfelves, 
^vhere  is  the  people,  confiding  of  two  or  three  mil- 
lions of  fouls,  inhabitants  of  a  rich  and  civilized 
country,  airaong  whom  one  could  not  fmd  300,000 
perfons  poifelTed  each  of  the  value  of  7<j  livres,  or, 
which  amounts  to  the  fame,  w^ho  could  not,  upon 
an  interelting  occafion,  and  in  a  tranfport  of  zeal, 
contribute  fifteen  francs  each  ?  Could  vou  name 
fuch  a  nation  ?  Where  then  is  the  impoffibility  that 
our  fathers  fhould  have  done,  at  that  time,  what 
^my  other  people,  as  numerous  as  they,  could  have 
done  in  like  circumftances  ? 

§  5.  Caufcs  of  the  errors  which  the  critics  have 
fQmmittad  in  treating  this  fubjcci. 

What  deceives  you,  fir,  and  your  writers,  arc 
firfl,  your  falfe  and  wilful  prejudices  on  the  ftate  of 
the  Hebrews  in  Egypt.     We  have  drawn  this  ftatc 

g'erm'iff-on,  f  ij'S  Mr.  Voltaire,  of  remoiihgtJnr  fnld  anr/jdveh,  •zvus  aftcrivardt 
rttraBed,  and  they  were  oh'iged  to  birter  them  for  coniiiiodilic^-i.  Vet  all  tl^e 
VfiritcrR  affure  lis  that  they  took  prodigious  wealth  out  of  thtfe  couturie*. 
.Mariiiia,  the  zealous  panegyritl  of  Fer  liiiaiid  and  Uahella,  and  wh.o  con- 
Kequently  could  not  widi  to  incrsafe  the  fum,  allows  that  it  was  imm-en-fe. 
He  cannot  conceal  that  politicians  charged  Ferdinand  with  having  cnmmit- 
tei  a  great  niiftake,  and  given  a  dangerous  wound  to  his  kingdom  by  thi« 
rxpuliion,  which  enriched  the  neighijcniring  nations.  M-fgno  uiiqiir  carum 
proidnclarum  compendio^  ad  quas  cop':ariim  ac  fiecunitc  ina^nam  pLirlfm,  atiriim,  ur~ 
yentum,  gemmai,  •vejhmque  pretiof<.i.m  f^cutn  detulei'e.  And  yct  thtis  WlIU  out 
of  Spain  only  170,000  families,  accordinjj  to  fome  Spanifli  vvritrrs,  and  I2C, 
<ooo,  according  to  the  Jews.  If  we  believe  the  author  of  an  £ff.iy  on  Uni- 
verfal  Hiftwry,  they  amounted  only  to  30,000  families  ■:  Pcrlia|>s  he  is  better 
informed-  Now  wliat  1530,000  fjinilies,  in  comparifon  tea  ptople  til  niorc 
than/Tf»  oiillianj  <iffuuls?  You  will  fay,  ]>erhaps,  that  .Spain  was  richer  than 
Xgypt,  in  the  time  uf  our  fathers;  And  tiiat  the  £j;yptia»s  had  not  tr.e 
nines  of  Peru  ?  Theyiiad  not,  but  they  bad  mines  at  home.  Dioii.iius  Si- 
rulus,  Agatharchides,  and  other  ancient  write-rs  confirm  this  :  ^  nd  it  appears 
that  thefc  mines  were  worked  long  before  iron  was  in  ule,  coulequei:tly  in 
very  ancient  timcB  ;  for  .^trabo  relates  that  tliey  were  opened  again  when  he 
was  in  Egypt,  and  that  the  bra[s  tools  were  found  in  tktm,  which  tlic  lor- 
;Bicr  worknKU  had  viediu  theiir  operatioflc.  £-dit- 


CEH-TAIN       Je'TS.  la/ 

for  you  out  of  Scripture,  that  is  to  fay,  out  of  the 
only  monuments  we  have  for  information.  You  arc 
pleafed  to  reprefcnt  it  to  yourfelf  in  a  quite  dif- 
ferent light,  and  to  exaggerate  their  indigence  tO" 
excefs. 

It  mufl  be  allowed,  that  as  they  were  under  fub- 
j.eclion  to  the  kings  of  that  country,  they  lived  for 
fome  time  un^ler  oppreffion,  and  grca-ned  und<;r  a 
yoke  hard  and  tyrannical.  But  if  you  take  the  terms, 
ilavery,  fervitude,  in  their  molt  literal  fenfe,  and 
reprclent  our  fathers  in  Egppt  like  chained  llaveSy 
or  the  rowers  of  your  gallies,  or  the  Negroes  in  your 
colonies  ;  you  are  mifiaken  iir,  you  ought  to  be 
better  acquainted  with  the  (i)  value  of  tropes. 

Your  fecond  midake  arifes  from  an  improper  con- 
fufion  of  times:  You  imagine  the  Ifraelites,  when  they 
arrived  at  mount  Sinai,  to  be  in  fuch  circumflances 
as  they  would  have  been  in  after  forty  years  refidence 
in  the  wildcrncfs.  Would  it  not  be  more  reafonable 
to  diftinguifli  thefe  two  periods,  and  to  fhew  the  dif- 
ference between  them. 

It  is  true  that  even  before  their  arrival  at  mount 
Sinai,  they  were  in  want  of  bread  and  water.  But 
thtfe  tranfitory  wants  prove  nothing.  Do  you  not 
conceive  fir,  that  people  may  have  gold  and  filvcr, 
and  want  bread  ?  Jewels  and  rich  faifis,  and  want 
water  ;  efpecially  in  thofe  horrid  deferts  ?  Rich  Cara- 
vans, in  thofe  parts,  have  often  experienced  the 
fame  fate  ;  and  did  any  body  ever  conclude,  that  be- 
caufc  they  wanted  water,  they  were  poor,  indigent, 
a.nd  in  want  of  every  thing  ? 

And  laflly,  your  miftakes  arife  from  this  ;  that 
you  do  not  form  to  yourfelf  a  juft  idea  of  this  mighty 
emigration  of  an  innumerable,  active  and  induRrious 

(i)  The  '.'ihie  nftrtpts.  Tfiofe  figuratrve  r.nd  cmpfiatrral  tcrm»  i^  capfi- 
fiiy,  flavi-ry,  &.C.  are  iHll  ufed  hy  tlii.'  Jews,  ro  rciircfent  tlicir  prelrnt  ftate 
ill  the  diiTcrenc  countries  «f  I'umjie,  in  Ifiily,  Pulaiui,  &c.  even  in  Hollanu, 
\<hcrc  tlicy  are  numerous  and  vvtalthy,  and  in  Er.gUiiJ,  vrliere  tii«y  were 
vtYy  ncnr  bi  iiig  nar'nraliKrd. 

The  Itarnid  critic  may  liffidcs  recol!e<fl  thnt  according  to  his  own  con- 
feflion,  our  tatlicrs,  •d\\.\\o' JLi-vCs  and  tapli-jes  in  li.i/fylin,  yet  grfro  rich  theie. 
Therefore  the  iJca  of  p«vcrty  and  indigence  is  nut  iiciccll^f!!-;  caJUSciit^L 
the  iici  ot"  w«  lliU  which  w-  call  ylr7.»-j.     Rdii . 


loS  Letters     of 

nation,  ilTuing  forth  from  a  rich  and  fertile  country  i 
An  emigration  which  was  announced  long  before, 
atidfor  which,  confequently,  they  had  time  to  pre- 
pare themfelves.  How  many  millions  more  would 
your  French  protedants  have  carried  out  of  France, 
if  they  had  been  in  like  manner  apprized  of  their 
departure,  and  had  quitted  that  kingdom  freely,  un- 
der one  and  the  fame  chief,  and  with  ail  their  fami- 
lies and  effects  ?  What,  fir,  you  affc^rt  that  thofe  re- 
fugees, who  were  far  inferior  in  numbers  to  our 
fathers,  and  like  them  for  a  long  time  perfecuted, 
and  obliged  to  flee  in  hafte  ;  took  out  of  their  into- 
lerant country  (i)  fo  many  millions,  and  yet  you 
think,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Hebrews  w^ere  fo 
poor  when  they  left  Egypt!  Were  you' impartial 
when  you  faw  fo  much  wealth  on  one  fide,  and  fo 
much  indigence  on  the  other  ? 

Therefore,  fir,  this  great  indigence,  this  penury 
of  the  Jews  at  the  foot  of  mount  Sinai,  is  neither 
certain  nor  even  probable.  It  is  an  aflirmation"  un- 
fupported  by  proof,  and  which  many  clear  texts  of 
Scripture  contradlcl.  If  we  judge  by  thefe  texts,,  to 
W'hich  you  can  oppofe  nothing  reafcnabie,  the  Ifra- 
efites  were  able  to  bear  ail  the  expences  of  the  con- 
llruftion  of  the  tabernacle,  and  mere  :  Therefore 
this  conftrudion  was  not  impoflible.  Now  this  faci, 
in  itfelf  poiTible,  happens  to  be  recorded  in  the  mod 
ancient  and  refpeftablc  of  their  books.  It  is  prefum- 
ed  in  all  the  others,  conneded  with  all  the  events 
that  follow  and  go  before,  and  fupported  by  the  molt 
uninterrupted  tradition  :  Therefore  one  would  think 
that  empi:y  conjeiHiures  are  not  fuflicient  to  fnake  the 
certainty  of  it.     We  remain,  &c. 

(i)  So  many  milUons.  In  tlie  poflfcrSpt  of  the  treatife  on  toleration, 
Mr.  Voltaire  makes  Count  d'Avatix  fay,  that  a  {ingle  man  liad  offvrfd  t»» 
•iifcover  more  than  20,ooo,oco  of  livres,  which  they  \vere  fendingr  out  cf 
France.  Judge  of  tlic  ri-mainJer  by  tills  olH:-,  and  judi^:^  alio  whether  tlie 
Jeariied  crir.ick  can  with  juftice  difpute  the  45  niiliioiis  whicli  we  give  to  the 
Ifrae'iites,  including  their  uwn  property,  aoi  the  ipoils  ef  the  Egyptian*. 
£dft. 


CERTAIN     Jews."  icp 

LETTER         VIII. 

On  the  24,000  Jfraelites^  luho  ivere  Jlaughtcred  on 
account  of  the  Moabitijh  women,  and  the  ivorfrnp  of 
Bsel-phegor, 


w. 


E  have  feen,  fir,  your  learned  and  judici- 
ous criticks,  reprefenting  the  puniihnieni  of  the 
worfhippers  of  the  golden  calf  as  accefiive  in  rigour, 
and  impraclicable  in  execution  ;  and  in  order  the 
better  to  prove  both,  they  fuddenly  add  2®,ooo 
men  to  the  3000  who  died  on  this  occafion,  in 
oppofition  to  the  clear  voice  of  the  text,  and  the 
teflimony  of  the  bed  verfions. 

With  the  fame  fpirit  of  candour  and  impartiali- 
ty, they  cry  out  againft  the  llory  of  the  24,000 
ViXditXitcs,  JIaugbtered  on  account  of  the  Moabitifh  wo- 
men, and  the  worfhip  of  Beel-phegor.  If  we  liften 
to  thefe  writers,  ever  friends  to  truth,  ihefe  25,000 
men  wer:  treated fo  cruelly  to  expiate  the  fault  tfone 
man,  luhich  after  all  was  no  great  crime.  From 
thefe  two  propofitions  they  infer,  that  this  fail  is  in- 
credible, and  that  the  relation  we  read  of  it  in  the 
Pentateuch  cannot  belong  to  Mofes. 

We  are  going  to  examine  them,  fir  ;  it  will  be 
cafy  to  fee,  by  what  we  fniill  fay  of  ihem, 
what  degree  of  behef  thefe  criticks,  and  all  like 
them  deferve,  even  when  they  fpeak  in  the  moft 
confident    flile. 

§  I.  IVbether  it  be  true  that  th:fe  24,000 
men  were  Jlaugbtered  to  expiate  the  faults  of  one 
man. 

"  Tind^ll,  Collins,  Jcc.  who  cannot  conceive 
*'  that  Mofes  caufed  23,000  Ifraelites  to  be  flaugh- 
*'  tered  for  having  worfhipped  the  golden  calf  j 
«'  ftart  the  fame  difficulties  on  the  24,000  others 
«*  v/ho  were  ( i )  butchered  by  his  order,    to   cx- 

(i)    BuUlered.     Is  thii   exprefllon  cxacfl  ?    It  implies  no    form  of    trial, 
alcho'    it  appears  from  th«  Ukt,  tivat  many  of  thef;:  guilty  men  were  con- 

P 


\iQ  '        Letters     of 

*'  piiire  the   fault   of  one  man  who    was   furprized 
"  vvith  a   (2)  Moabiti(h  woman.'* 

We  fuppofe  the  fame  anfwers  to  the  fame  objefti- 
ons.  xurn  to  them,  fir,  Page  136.  We  think 
t.  e  .1  fatiofadorv. 

Your  criiicks  add  that  thefe  24,000  men  were 
butchered  to  expiate  the  fault  of  one.  This  af- 
fcition  is  new  in  order  to  eflablifh  its  certain- 
ty, let  us  confult  the  Book  of  Numbers  where 
this  fad  is  related.  We  read  the  following 
account  in  it  even  according  to  your  vulgate.  Num- 
bers, Ch.  25. 

"  And  lirael  abode  in  Shitim,  and  the  people 
"  began  to  commit  whoredom  with  the  daughters 
"  of  Moab  :  And  they  called  the  people  to  the  fa- 
*'  criiices  of  their  Gods,  and  the  people  did  eat 
"  and  bowed  down  to  their  Gods.  And  Ifrael  joined 
'•'•  himfelf  unto  Baal-peor,  and  the  anger  of  the 
''  Lord  was  kindled  againfl  Ifrael.  And  the  Lord 
*'  faid  unto  Mofcs,  take  all  the  heads  of  the  peo- 
*'  pie  and  hang  them  up  before  the  Lord,  againfl: 
*'  the  fun,  that  the  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord  may 
'•  be  turned  away  from  Ifrael.  And  Mofes  faid 
"  unto  the  judges  of  Ifrael,  flay  ye  every  one 
♦'  his  men  that  were  joined  unto  Baal-peor  :  And 
*-  behold  one  of  che  children  of  Ifrael  came  and 
"  brought  unto  his  brethren  a  Midianitifli  wo- 
''  man,  in  the  fight  of  Mofes,  and  in  the  fight 
"  of  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Ifrael, 
"  who  were  weeping  before  the  door  of  the  taber- 
*"  nacie  of  the  congregation.     And  when  Phineas,. 


clc-niriccl  by  Jii'^pes,  and  executed  according  to  their  fcntencc.  AiXA  to 
tiiis,  that  the  greater  part  of  thefe  24,000  men.  was  carried  off  by 
it  play;ue  with  which  God  punifhed  thtni,  and  which  ceafed  at  the  death 
<if"  ZaiTihri.  It  wa»  ilicrefoic  racficr  an  tyidtiiiical  diftcnipcr  thau  a /.«/- 
tleiy-  £Jit. 

(2)  Moabitifb  •zvoman.  This  wotnr.n  who  was  called  Ccifb!,  was  not 
a  Moahite  hut  a  Midiaflite,  and  daUjihtcr  of  one  of  the  kings  of  this  coun- 
try.  'I'his  is  a  flight  nirll;ike,  which  Mr.  Voltaire  h;is  taken  care  to  cor- 
retil  ii)  aiitither  edition,  where  he  clears  his  writers  of  this  li:tle  itiaccura* 
cy.     Mt.  liiight     l.jave  cleared  (i.cin   oi  many   others.     Ldit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  in 

^  the  Ton  of  Eleazar,  the  fon  of  Aaron,  the 
'*  priefl:,  faw  it,  he  rofe  up  froni  among  the  con- 
"  gregation,  and  took  a  javelin  in  his  hanil  ;  and 
"  he  went  after  the  man  of  Ifraei  into  the  tent, 
**  and  thruft  both  of  thcni  thro',  the  man  of  Ifmel 
"  and  the  woman  thro'  her  belly  :  So  the  plague 
"  was  flayed   from  the    children  of  Ifraei. 

It  is  in  this  pafi'age,  fir,  that  your  writers  have 
found  the  innocence  of  thofe  24,000  mev.  ?  We 
fee  in  it,  on  the  contrary  .that  they  were  exnrefsiy  pro- 
nounced guilty  ;  th"t  they  were  feduced  by  iliofe 
flrange  women,  and  gave  themfelvcs  up  -  to  an 
impure  commerce,  of  which  idolatrv  foon  became  the 
difmal  effect;  that  by-  this  tv/ofold  crime  they  irri- 
tated the  Lord,  and  drew  upon  their  heads  thh 
fentence  of  condemnation  ;  laftly,  that  the  orchr 
for  punifliment  was  given  before  Zambri  went  in  unto 
the  Midianite  woman.  Had  thev  been  butchered  to 
expiate  this  fault,  the  maffacre  would  not  have  been 
ordered  before  the  fault  was  committed.  Their  death 
was  therefore  the  punifhment  of  their  own  crimes, 
and  not  an  expiation  for  ibf  fault  of  one  mail.  Thus 
your  criticks,in  order  to  give  facls  an  odious  appear- 
ance, alter  their  nature  :   The  fecret  is  admirable  ! 

§  I.  Whether  T^afubri  and  the  24,000  Ifraelitcs 
were  but  /lightly  guilty. 

If  Zambri  and  the  24,000  Ifraelites,  I'lr,  were 
innocent,  yet,  in  the  opinion  of  your  writers, 
they  were  not  very  guilty.  We  fee  fo  many  je-wijh 
Icings,  and  efpecially  Sokmo^u  taking  to  thcnfcl'vcs 
Jirange  ivives,  without  punifjinent,  that  the  cri- 
ticks  cannot  think,  that  an  alliance  zvilh  a  ivoman 
of  Moab   was  fo  great  a  crime. 

So  the  excelfes  of  thofe  Hebrews  with  the  v/o- 
men  of  Moab  and  Pviidian,  the  impure  worHilp 
of  Baal-phegor,  which  v/as  the  confequcnce  of  it, 
the  infolent  lewdnefs  of  Zambri  going  in  unto  the  Mi- 
dianite, in  contempt  of  the  law,  the  lawgiver,  and 
the  whole  affembly  of  the  people,  who  proftrate  at 
the  doors  of  the  tabernacle,  flrove  with  floods  of 
tears  to  appeafe  the  anger  of  the  Lord  ;  all  ilieTe 


112  Letters 


O    F 


tranfgreffivons,  impiety,  licentioufnefs  and  rebellion 
againlt  public  authority,  thefe  are  all  reduced  by 
thofe  v/riters  merely  to  an  alliance  with  a  ivoman 
of  Moab  .  You  mud  allow,  fir,  that  the  denomi- 
nation is  gentle,  and  the  name  you  give  the  adtion 
modetl:.  We  can  eafily  diflinguifh  the  good  nature 
of  your  critcks.  ,. 

So  many  jewiJJo  kings  marryhig  Jirange  ivcmen 
ivithout  punijhment :  Well,  and  what  conclufion 
can  we  draw  from  this  in  favour  of  thofe  fornica- 
tors and  adulterers  ?  Is  it  the  fame  thing  to 
take  a  wife,  or  to  give  one's  felf  up  to  profti- 
tutes  ? 

So  many  kings !  Could  they  not  name  them  ? 
No,  fir,  the  number  of  them  is  not  fo  great  as 
thefe  writers  feem  to  think.  Few  of  thofe  ftrange 
w^omen,  perfevering  idolaters,  went  into  the  fami- 
lies of  our  kings,  without  carrying  alfo  with  them 
confufion  and  misfortunes.  And  when  your  cri- 
ticks  quote  a  Solomon,  they  probably  reckon 
as  nothing  the  diminution  of  his  authority  in  his 
latter  years,  the  rebellions  of  his  fubjefls,  and  the 
fcepter  of  Ifrael  taken  from  his  fon  and  his  pofte- 
rity  for  ever. 

But  even  fuppofe  that  fome  of  our  kings  had 
married  idolatrous  women  with  impunity,  does  an 
aftion  ceafe  to  be  criminal,  becaufe  it  is  not  al- 
ways puniilied  in  a  fignal  manner  ?  What  fliock- 
ing  deeds  might  be  juftified  by  this  method  of 
reafoning  ! 

Your  judicious  criticks,  to  the  example  of  thefe  Jew- 
ifh  kings,  which  prove  nothing,  join  that  of  Boaz, 
which  prove  Hill  lefs.  Let  us  fee  the  turn  they 
give  it. 

"  Ruth  was  a  Moabitefs,  tho'  her  family  waS 
"  originally  of  Bethlehem.  The  fcripture,  al- 
"  ways  call  her  Ruth  the  Moabitefs.  And 
"  vet  flie  went  and  laid  herfelf  in  the  bed 
"  of  Boaz,    by  her  mother's  advice.     She  marri- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  uj 

"  ed  him  afterwards,     and    was   grandmother   of 
«  David. 

Yes,  Ruth  was  of  Moab,  but  the  holy  fcriptnre, 
which  always  calls  her  Ruth  the  Moabitefs,  does 
not  fay  any  where  that  flie  came  originally  from 
Bethlehem.  This  wasnot  her  native  co(intry,but  that 
of  her  hufband  :  Will  your  criticks  never  learn  exad- 
nefs. 

Notwith)^anding  by  the  advice  cf  her  Mother,  Iffc, 
It  fhould  be  of  her  mother-in-law,  for  Ruth  was 
not  the  daughter,  but  daughter-in-law  of  Na- 
omi. When  you  tranfcribed  the  arguments  of  your 
writers,  you  fhould  have  corrected  thefe  Httle  er- 
rors. 

She  ivent  and  laid  herfelf  in  the  bed  of  Boaz, 
Not  in  the  bed  but  at  the  foot  of  it  :  This  diifer- 
ence,  which  you  perhaps  deem  trifling,  may  feem 
to  others  worthy  of  notice. 

The  advice  of  Naomi,  and  the  behaviour  of  Ruth, 
no  doubt  appeared  to  your  writers  a  tranfadion 
which,  in  their  hands  might  become  amufmg ; 
and  this  was  the  chief  reafon  that  we  were  fa- 
voured with  his  mifplaced  quotation.  This  piece 
of  hiflory  is  certainly  not  according  to  the  prefent 
manner,  but  after  all,  is  it  as  comical  as  thofe  wri- 
ters think  ? 

To  judgerightly  of  it,  let  us  recoiled  that  Naomi, 
when  fhe  gave  this  advice  to  her  daughter-in-law, 
.  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  probity  of 
her  old  kinfman,  with  the  virtue  of  the  young 
widow, and  with  her  jufl:  pretenfions  to  the  hand,  and 
the  great  poiTeiTions  of  Boaz.  But  efpecially  remem- 
ber this  that  Ruth  did  not  live  in  the  i8th  centurv, 
nor  in  one  of  the  ftreets  of  Paris,  but  in  a  time  and 
place  when  three  publications  of  Banns  where  not 
necelTary  to  make  a  marriage  lawful ;  where  the  con- 
fent  oi  parties  particularly  in  the  prefent  cafe,  was 
fufficient,  without  any  publick  ceremony  :  In  fhort, 
where  a  widow  Vvithout  children,  had  a  right  to 
require  from  her  hulband's  neareft  relation,    that  he 


114  Letters      of. 

fliould  mnrry  her,  nnd  where,  in  cafe  of  refufal,  {he 
might  bring  him  before  a  judge,  there  take  off  his  fnoes 
and  fend  him  home  barefooted,  after  having  fpit 
in  his  faCw  before  the  whole  ailembly.  When  all  this 
is  confidered,  can  the  hillory  of  Ruth  afford  matter 
of  mirth  to  any  but  ignorant  Hbertines  ? 

Boaz  Jtiarricd  her  aftcrivards.  Befides  that  Boaz 
m;ght  think  himfelf  difpenfed  from  that  law  which 
forbad  marrying  ftrange  women,  by  the  other  which 
ordered  the  nearefl;  male  relation  to  marry  the  wi- 
dow of  a  relation  who  had  died  without  iffue  ; 
Ruth  had  forfaken  the  religion  of  her  country,  and 
embraced  that  of  our  fathers.  Now  the  law  which 
prohibited  marrying  firange  women,  refpe6ted  only 
thofe  who  remaining  attached  to  the  worfliip  of  idols, 
might  entice  their  hufbands  to  it  :  Such  is  the  opi- 
Hion  of  our  doctors.  Boaz  therefore  did  not  tranf- 
grefs  the  law  by  marrying  Ruth.  What  relation 
is  there  between  the  condu6l  of  this  old  man  and  the 
idolatry,  the  adulteries,  &c.  of  the  24,000  men 
whom  your  criticks  want  to  juflify  ? 

"  Rahab,  fay  they,  was  not  only  a  ffranger,  but 
*'  a  common  proflitute.  The  vulgate  gives  her 
*'  no  other  title  but  that  of  Mcretrix.  Yet  flic 
''   married   Salmon,   prince  of    Juda." 

The  title  of  Meretrix,  fir,  which  the  vulgate 
gives  Rahab,  does  not  prevent  fome  learned  nien, 
Chriftians  too,  from  maintaining  that  fhe  was  not 
a  proflitute  ;  and  the  Hebrew  word,  which  anfwers 
to  the  Latin,  does  not  neceffarily  convey  that  idea. 
However  Rahab  had  been  converted  ;  fl^ie  had  quit- 
ted the  worfhip  of  idols,  and  ferved  (i)the^God 
of  Ifrael.  Therefore  ffie  was  not  within  the  prohi- 
bition. 

Nor  was  Bethfabe'.    Your  writers  fay,  that  flie  was 

d)    The  Cjol  nfjfrael.     One  of  tlie  (A podles  of  the    clirinian   religion  a ITiireg 

111,  that    Riihab  -n'lis   j>iP.':f:cd  liy   her  icoiLs-      Rahab    Merttrix  nonne    ex    oterilnis 

j.'fl'ificnta  ejl  ?  Mr.   Voltaire  ;«    Is  PLilofophy  of  L;,  o;_)'.  fayh  only,  that    Hie 
"probahly     leil,  ftnca  that  time,      a    Letter  life,  fine e     fhe  teas  the   granJmoiher  of 
P.i'viJ,   anj    er<en  of  the  'Sainouy    of  the   tcorlff.       This  '.vord  prol'chly,    com- 
ing  from  a  ciirilhan,  well  defcrvcd  notice  from  the  Jtws.      Ld'it. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  115 

a  flranger.  This  might  be  altho'  the  fcripturc 
does,  not  mention  it :  It  only  informs  us  that  the 
hufband  was  an  Hittite.  But  the  Hittites  of  that 
time  were,  perhaps,  only  Hebrews  fettled  in  the 
land  of  the  Hittices.  At  leafl:  Uriah,  altho'  a  Hit- 
tite, ferved  in  the  armies  of  David  !  he  worfhipped 
the  God  of  his  prince,  and  Bethfabe',  Hke  him, 
obferved  the  law  of  Ifra^l. 

"  If  we  go  farther  back,  the  patriarch  Jada  mar- 
ried a  Canaaaitel's :  His  children  had  for  wife  Ta- 
mar,  of  the  race  of  Aram  ;  This  woman,  wlthwhom 
Juda  committed  an  innocent  inceft,  was  not  of  the 
race  of  Ifrael. 

By  going  fo  far  back,  fir,  you  may  perhaps  go 
up  to  the  time  when  the  law,  which  prohibited 
intermarrying  with  flrange  women,  did  not  yet  exift. 
Suppofing  it  even  to  have  exided  in  the  time  of  the 
patriarch  Juda,  all  that  could  be  inferred  from  this, 
would  be  that  he  had  committed  a  grievous  fault 
in  tranfgreiTing  it.  But  does  it  follow  that  be- 
caufe  Juda,  his  children,  Solomon,  ^:c.  had 
incurreJ  guilt,  therefore  the  24,000  men  were  in- 
nocent. 

Upon  the  whole,  altho'  thefe  examples  are  in- 
conclufive,  yet  we  muft  allow  that  they  were  not 
without  a  fixed  purpofe,  but  rather  with  a  defign. 
They  ferve  to  introduce  two  reflexions,  one,  that 
Rabab,  a  projiitute^  was  a  figure  of  the  Chrifilan 
Church:  the  other,  that  Jesus  deigned  to  dsfccnd 
from  finae  ftrange  ivojnen,  one  of  them  guilty  of  inceji, 
the  reji  proftltutes  and  adultereffes^  i^c.  We  (ball 
leave  thefe  pious  refletlions  for  the  edification  of 
chriftians  ;  not  doubtin;c]^  but  you  made  or  reported 
them  with  this  view.  We  remain  with  the  higheil 
aiid    malt  fincere  regard,    kz. 


-I  1 6  I^    E    T    T    E    R    S       OF 

LETTER     IX. 

Ihe    cpinhns    of  the  learned  men  on  the  Pentateuchy 
ivbicb  are  ?;ie?iticned  in  the  note^  are  examined. 


W: 


HEN  a  man  wants  to  attack  generally  received 
opinions,  and  that  he  has  not  good  reafons  to  oppofe, 
he  drives  to  prop  himfelf  up  cunningly,  by  great  au- 
thorities :  Under  the  (helter  of  illuftrious  names,  he 
runs  lefs  rHk  of  expofmg  himfelf,  and  he  feems  to 
contend  to  greater  advantage,  at  leaft  for  a  certain 
time,  and  in  the  opinion  of  certain  readers. 

Such,  no  doubt,  were  your  views,  fir,  when  you 
quoted  in  your  note,  that  long  lift  of  celebrated  wri- 
ters, to  whom  ycu  afcribe  the  reafonings  you  make, 
and  of  whom  you  fay  you  are  only  the  tranfcriber. 

We  dare  not  fay  that  you  never  read  the  works  of 
thefe  learned  men,  but  this  we  will  venture  to  affirm, 
either,  that  you  have  mifunderftood  the  opinions  of 
moft  of  them,  or  mifmterpreted  them  :  At  leaft  you 
do  not  fpeak  of  them  with  all  that  exaclnefs  which 
might  be  expefted  from  fuch  a  writer  as  you  :  This  is 
what  we  intend  to  prove  to  you,  fir,  and  we  think 
you  cannot  fail  to  draw  the  fame  conclufions  from 
the  faithful  expofition,  which  we  lliall  now  lay  before 
you. 

§  I.  Opinion  of  WooUaJion^  Improperly  called  in  the 
vote  Volzjlon  and  Vholajion. 

One  may  judge  that  you  are  little  acquainted  with 
this  learned  man,  by  the  very  manner  in  which  you 
disfigure  his  name.  He,  of  all  the  writers  whom  you 
mention,  leait  deferves  a  place  in  your  lift:  We  have 
read  his  book  on  natural  rcUfhn  feveral  times,  the 
only  work  he  had  time  to  publifli,  and  we  cannot  re- 
coUccl:  to  have  found  any  thing  in  it  of  all  that  you 
nvdke  him  fay  :  But  as  we  were  diffident  whether 
this  proceeded  from  forgetfulnefs  on  our  parts,  or 
miilako  (m  vours,  we  determined  to  read  it  over  a- 
ealn  from  beeinnins  to  end.   We  can  now  an"ure  you 


e£RrAi>f    j£ws.  117 

that  none  of  the  reafonings  in  ycur  note  are  to  be 
found  in  this  work,  and  that  there  is  not  a  word  faid 
of  thofe  queltions,  which  you  difcufs  on  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

What  was  you  thinking  of  then,  fir,  when  you 
put  this  learned  and  pious  clergynian  of  the  church 
of  England  in  the  lift  of  your  criticks,  who  find  ab- 
furdities  and  contradictions  in  the  facred  writings  ? 
And  do  you  thus  confound  him  with  Bolingbroke, 
Tindall  and  Collins  ?  Perhaps  the  title  alone  of  Wol- 
lafton's  work  lead  you  into  ihat  error,  which  many  of 
his  countrymen  fell  into  :  "  As  foon  as  a  fl^etch  of  the 
*'  treatife  on  natural  religion  appeared,  fays  rhe  author 
"  o^  la  Bibliotheque  Angloifc^  the  libertine  party  con- 
*'  ceived  it  was  a  book  in  their  favour  :  Ihey  already 
**  triumphed  :  But  their  joy,  he  adds,  was  fhort- 
*'  lived  :  And  upon  reading  it  the  publick  was  unde- 
*'  ceived." 

BoHngbroke  and  his  party  were  better  acquainted 
with  this  writer  than  you,  fir,  and  therefore,  tho* 
they  could  not  avoid  doing  juftice  to  his  extenfive 
knowledge,  yet  he  has  often  been  the  object  of  their 
hitterel;  cenfures  :  This  is  a  clear  proof  that  he  held, 
none  ot  thofe  opinions  which  they  cherifhed. 

This  then  is  the  firft  illuftrious  name  which  is  to 
beerafed  out  of  your  lift  (f). 

§  1.     Opinion  cf  ABr.'N  KzRA. 

Aben  Tzra,  you  fay,  was  i\\QfirJi  luho  vcnfargd 
to  nffirm^  that  iIk  Pentateuch  zuaj  cu mailed  in  the  tims 
■of  the  kir.gs^ 

It  is  true,  that  notwithflanding  the  verv  general 
opinion  of  our  dodors  in  his  time,  who  jjeld  that  the 
Featateucli,  even  to  the  lift  fyllablf,  had  been  writ- 
ten by  Mofes,  yet  this  learneJ  critick  thought  he 
found  foine  palTages  in  it,  which' could  not  belong  to 

(l)   Tale  erafateui  of  your  lifl.      Wc  tiiUil  ohfcfTe  lliat  in  the  I^^oavfaux  y>:e- 
l.inges,   art  :    ilrt  ccriv.iini  qui  out  eu!t  m.ilieur  d'ccrm  cunlre  U  re^'^'fjn,    Wiiollaf- 

■lon  is  ftill  inferteJ  in  i\x  lift,  who  i«  tS^re  callei  rool.:j>cri:  Will  the  iiluO.ri- 
ods  writtr  never  take  the  Uoub'e  to  perufe  Wooll.inoii'..  tr«:»tifc  ?  A  flight 
/lance  of  tUi«  work,  ai.J  ol  the  prcfice,  \,uu;i  bt  (uiuirat  to  uuJtccivc 
11)^1.     Luii. 


ii8  Lettersof 

the  holv  leg-IHator.  He  thoujiht  they  came  from  an 
author  of  later  date,  who  lived  probably  in  the  time 
of  the  kings.  But  you  will  find  it  hard  to  prove, 
that  he  concluded  from  this,  that  thefe  books,  were 
neither  written  nor  compiled  until  then.  To  think 
that  fome  pafTages  of  the  Pentateuch,  were  inferted 
into  it  in  the  time  of  the  kmgs,  or  to  fix  to  this  peri- 
od the  compilation  of  the  whole  work,  is  by  no  means 
the  fame  thing. 

In  order  toconvift  this  learned  man  of  fo  errone- 
ous an  opinion,  clear  and  formal  texts,  extrafted. 
from  his  works,  not  empty  conjedlures,  would  be  ne- 
ceflary.  If  you  know  any  fuch,  fir,  we  challenge 
you  to  produce  them. 

Whilft  you  are  preparing  for  thi^,  we  m,ay  learn 
from  the  ingenious  father  Simon,  what  we  ought  to 
think  of  this  charge,  and  from  whence  you  have  taken 
it.  "  Spinoza,  fays  he,  wrongs  Aben  Ezra,  when 
**  he  affures  us  that  this  Rabbi,  did  not  believe  Mofes 
"  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  What  he  fays 
"  of  this  Rabbi,  and  he  produces  juft  the  fame  paf- 
"  fages  you  do,  proves  only  that  fome  additions  have 
"  been  made  to  certain  parts,  which  have  been  un» 
"  doubtedly  written  by  Mcfes,  or  in  his  time, 
"  and  by  his  order.  This  fame  Spinoza  fiiews  his 
'^  ijrnorance  dill  plainer  in,  &c.   hz. 

t'pon  the  whole,  if  any  man  fliould  be  led  from 
what  you  fay  of  Aben  Ezra,  to  imagine  that  he 
thought  and  reafoned  as  your  infidel  criticks  do,  lie 
wouki  form  a  very  falfe  judgment  of  his  opinions. 
His  attachment  to  the  religion  of  hi^  fathers,  the  high 
eHieem  which  the  fynagogue  had  for  him  during  hia. 
life,  and  the  rcfped  which  it  yet  preferves  for  his  me- 
mory are  clear  proofs  of  his  orthodoxy. 

Let  us  add,  that  learned  criticks  have  fhewn,  that 
m.oft:  evenof  thofe  palfages  which  you  quote  after  A- 
ben  Ezra,  and  which  he  thought  poflerior  to  Mofes, 
may  have  come  from  the  pen  of  that  legillator.  U  hey 
give   futisfaCtory  proofs  of  this,  which  may  be  fetii 


CERTAIN      Jews.  119 

(r)  in  their  works.  ^Ve  fnall  jufl  relate  briefly  what 
one  of  thofe  writers  fay?,  whofe  authority  you  chal- 
lenge, the  learned,  the  famous  le  Clerc. 

Aben  Ezra,  you  fay,  grounds  his  doubts  on  feveral 
f^Ji'gcs.  "  The  Canaanite  was  in  this  country. 
*'  ihe  mountain  of  Moria,  (2)  called  the  mountain 
•'of  God.  The  bed  of  Og,  king  of  Bafan,  is  ftill 
•'  iizQW  in  Rabath.  And  he  called  all  this  country  of 
*'  Bafan,  the  cities  of  fair  to  this  day.  There  never 
*'  was  feen  a  prophet  in  Ifrael  Uke  ISlofes.'*  lie  in- 
fifts  i».at  thofe  palTages,  which  fpeak  of  things  tiiat 
happened  after  the  tl-.ie  of  Mofes,  could  not  liave 
been  written  by  him. 

Thus  Aben  Ezra  rc,::'bned.  But  le  Clerc  denies 
that  thofe  paflagcs  fpeak  of  things  which  happened 
after  the  time  of  Mofes.  '^  He  fays  that  the  firlt  paf- 
*'  fr.ge  which  has  been  ill  tranflated  thus,  the  Canaa- 
*'  niie  ivas  then  in  this  country,  n!ay  and  ought  to  be 
*'  thus  tranflated,  the  Canaanite  ivas  fince  that  time 
"  in  this  country,  which  was  true,  even  in  Abraham's 
*'  time,  and  confequently  (3)  clears  the  whole  difli- 
"  culty.  That  the  name  oi  Moria  God  ivil!  provide, 
*'  given  to  the  mountain,  to  which  the  patriarch  led 
*'  his  fen  to  facrifice  him,  may  have  been  in  ufe 
"  a  (horttime  after  this  facriike,  and  a  long  time  be- 
"  fore  Mofes.  That  this  Icgiflator,  writing  probably 
*'•  fome  months  after  the  defeat  of  Og,  may  have  faid 
*'  that  his  iron  bed  was  yet  preferved  in  Rabath,  and 

(l)  In  their  •utrlt.  See  A' baiiie,  Dupin,  the  dlfcourres  of  bi(Tiop  KidJer, 
placid  litfi.re  his  notes  on  the  Piiuaituch,  in  wiiich  he  treats  tins  fubjccik 
with  judg;nicnt.     Aul. 

(i)  CiiUeJ  the  mountain  of  God.  Here  Mr.  Vo'tairc  is  a  bad  interpreter  of 
Abcn  Kzra.  'I'his  mountain  was  not  called  the  uiountain  vf  (!oJ  on  accuunt  of 
AVrahani's  facritice,  for  tills  is  the  common  name  of  all  hijjh  ni(>uiitjinH  in 
Hibrevv  It  wa.'i  called  Moria,  that  is,  GV/  wiU  fro-viJe,  from  the  remarka- 
ble cxprefiion  of  Abraham  to  hi*  foH.  Ti.e  illuftrious  writer  x*  iu  taken  up 
with  a  mutitude  of  objects,  that  he  has  not  time  to  attend  tJ  thtfc  fniili 
thiii(^s.      EJit 

(l)  CLan  ibtivLoU  iiifi:uhy.  Mr.  Frerct  is  of  the  f^ime  opinion.  He  fay«. 
that  "  fincc  tlie  time  of  Abrahan.,  the  Canaaiiitts  had  I'.riven  out  the  antitnt 
"  inhabitants  of  t!t«  conatry,  and  Ictthd  m  their  p  ace  "  See  liie  nuntoirk 
of  the  acidcmy  of  infcri;it:ons.  When  after  fiuh  clear  folutlons,  a  mun 
btiiijjs  on  again  thofe  thicftdbare  o'^jcdion.,  XM*y  he  aoi  be  jufily  ciiiirgti 
WJth  waat  bi  iniwUJ^c  Mijmttiit^.     iil/nji. 


Ttfc  Le    ITERS      ©F 

*'  that  the  exprefTions  which  are  tranflated,  yet  and  to 
*'  this  day,  are  foinetimes  ufed  by  ancient  writers,  fa- 
"  crcdand  prophane,  to  fignify  a  time  but  little  dif- 
"  tant.  That  therefore  there  is  nothing  in  thel'e  paf- 
'**  fages  but  what  Mofes  may  have  written.'* 

As  to  the  paflage  where  the  king^  of  Edom  and  If- 
rael  are  fpoken  of,  and  a  fmall  number  of  other  paf- 
fages,  he  allows  that  they  fecm  (i)  added  to  the  text. 
But  he  fays,  "  that  thole  flight  additions,  made  by 
*'  the  prophets  who  lived  after  Mofes,  ought  not  to 
*'  prevent  us  from  looking  upon  him  as  the  :ii«thor 
*' of  the  Pentateuch,  fmce  there  are  fo  many  other 
*'  proofs  of  this,  jull:  as  the  Hebrew  antiquities  are  a- 
*'  fcribed  to  Jofephus,  although  fome  pafiages  may 
*'  have  been  inferted  (2)  by  recent  hands."  'i'he  opi- 
nion then  of  Aben  Ezra,  which  only  afcribed  the 
texts  above  quoted  to  perfons  after  Mofes*s  time,  this 
opinion  I  fay,  which  is  very  ditferent  from  the  one 
you  give  him,  was  ill  grounded  and  falfe,  even  ac- 
cording to  the  judgment  of  the  learned  le  Clerc, 

fl)  Added  to  tJn  lext.  Other  learned  men  have  proved  that  the  Hebrew 
word,  ■which  is  tranflated  ^/nff,  might  fignify,  cb'ii:/,  commandef,  &c,&c..  AwA 
that  it  hashten  applied  in  this  feiir;  to  fome  of  our  Judges.  See  Ahbadic." 
This  exccllei't  writrr  hasdifcufTed  and  cleared  this  objciJlion  in  fuch  a  man- 
ner, as  leaves  no  room  for  a  reply,  h  is  very  extri»rdinary,  that  Mr.  Vol- 
tairt  ceu/d  tide  if  upon  hiiit  t»  produce  it  apjsin,     EJ'tt. 

(2)  By  ricent  hands.  Jt  appears  that  le  Clerc,  had  in  view  thethrte  famous 
palfages  concerning  John  the  haj»tift,  JefusChrirt,  and  St,  James.  But  be- 
sides thefe  throe  text-;,  which  many  learned  CliriOioiis  have  he'd  to  be  aii- 
■  thentick,  there  arc  others  w+.ich  have  undoubtedly  been  ai''ded  to  Joreplufs  ;■ 
fuch  among  others  is  tli.it  one  which  the  Abbe  Miqui^t  poi!iL.3  out  in  one  of 
his  learned  memoirs  Ir.  is  a  parenthefis  in  which  the  forger  makes  J  >fcphu*, 
a  pharifce,  fay  juft  the  contrary  of  what  the  phurifces  thought.  Sec  the  me- 
moirs of  the  academy  of  infcriptions. 

Thofc  flight  additions,  which  are  foun^  in  aloKift  all  tlie  ancient  writers, 
give  us  no  reafon  to  deny  them  to  be  the  authors  of  fuch  works  as  are  gene- 
rally afcribed  to  them. 

As  we  are  h  ippy  in  fpeaking  to  a  man  of  letters,  who  may  perhips  relilh 
fuch  obftrvatior.s,  we  ihal!  give  two  inftances  oFthofc  additions  whicii  have 
been  as  yet  unnoticed  by  the  criticks 

The  firft  is  from  IJvy.  In  the  Cxth  boi>k,  No.  40.  !n  the  middle  of  Ap- 
jJius's  difcouife  ugainft  the  tribunes,  we  read,  "  Dc  indignitate  fatis  didluni 
"  eft,  (^i-.'4'i//.f  V/;y;i//jj  aj'/!oCT/-7«^fr<»/7?/y  quid  de  rcligionibus  loquar."  We 
think  tliisparciithefiB,  mof)  unworthy  of  1-ivy,  mufl  have  been  a  poor,  ridi- 
culous note,  which  paffcd  from  the  margin  into  the  text. 

The  feconJ  is  fr  )m  Vir^jil.  In  the  ninth  book  of  the  Eneid,-  where  the  po- 
et, after  having  related  the  ceTtJis  of  Nifus  and  Eurialus,  dcfcribes  the  attack 
•f  tlit  Rutuliaijs  on  the  Trojr.n  csr.-.p,  we  read  in  many  cdiiwtis, 


CERTAIN      Jews.  I2( 

§  3.  Lr  Clerc*s  Opinio?!* 
After  what  wc  have  been  faying  of  this  celebrated 
critick,  could  we  expe6l  to  find  you  placing  him  not 
only  in  the  lift,  but  at  the  head  of  thofe  learned  men, 
who  hold  that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  compiled  un- 
til the  time  of  the  kings  ?  And  yet  this  you  do  in. 
your  note,  and  in  feveral  other  parts  of  your  works. 
We  fliall  not  conceal  that  le  Clerc  did  at  firft  hold 
this  opinion.  But  if  wc  owed  this  acknowledgment 
to  truth,  were  you  not  under  the  fame  obligation  to 
inform  your  readers  that  he  changed  his  mind  fmce; 
and  in  a  riper  age  openly  embraced  that  opinion 
which  he  combated  in  his  youth  ?  Confult,  fir,  the 
diilertation  he  has  placed  before  his  commentary  on 
Genefis.  There  he  not  only  anfwers  the  objedions. 
of  Aben  Ezra,  as  v/e  have  fhewn,  but  btfides  folves 
thofe  difficulties  which  he  had  propofed  to  himfelfin 
the  tra6t  called,  Seniimens  de  quelqucs  thcologuiens  de 
Hollande.  And  when  he  gives  an  account  of  this 
comment  in  his  Bibliotheque  choifie  he  repeats,  "  That 
*'  Mofes  cannot,  with  any  fhew  of  reafon,  be  denied 
"  to  have  been  the  real  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
"  that  the  palTages  which  have  been  added  after- 
*'  wards  are  tew  in  number,  that  fome  of  them  are 
"  of  a  doubtful  nature,  which  learned  men  have 
"  looked  on  as  of  a  later  date  than  Mofes,  although 
"  without  proof."  Judge  now,  fir,  whether  it  was 
proper  to  place  this  writer  without  referveatthe  head 

Q;*(»   i'f^t   arreSi'is-,  infu  mlfcrabili  in   ILiJlu  ! 
I'r.cpguiint   9ofita    tl*   mtilto  clamort   SrquuntuTf 
£uryali    isf  I^i/i;   quanta   vtox    CccJe  piaada  ! 

Thcfe  lad  words,  quant':  mox  cade pianiia,  wcrc,  they  fiy,  added  ^y  fjtlift* 
VaniercS'  They  have  appeared  again  in  an  edition  ni  Virgil,  printed  ac 
Rome,  with  a  new  tranflatioii  in  Italian  verfc  by  a  learntfd  Jefuit.  But 
would  not  thefe  two  ingenioiij  nien  have  (hewn  more  tafte,  if  inftcaH  of  mak- 
ing an  addition  to  the  text,  they  had  retrenched  the  words,  Eutyali  ^  I\,'ifi  f 
For  although  they  may  be  fi^und  in  the  heft  editions,  it  feems  clear  to  us,  that 
they  do  not  belong  to  Virgil,  but  to  fome  anaotator,  who  placed  them  in  the 
margin. 

Tile  grcateft  part  of  the  additions  made  to  the  Pentateuch,  ire,  in  !ik« 
manner,  parei::ht.f's,  or  explanatory  nntis  ;  with  this  dilFtrcnce,  h<uvever« 
that  thofe  who  made  thcfe  latter  additions,  had  charadler  and  aut]>w  itv  t« 
•Support  them  :r.  lo  dolrig.      Aut. 


iz2  Lbttirs     o  t 

of  thofe,  who  affirm  the  Pentateuch  to  have  been 
written  long  after  Mofes. 

But  even  at  the  very  time  that  he  was  attached  to 
bis  firft  opinion,  yet  he  thought  "  that  there  is  not 
any  "' fad  of  importance  related  in  the  facred  writ- 
**  ings  that  is  not  true.  That  the  hiftory  we  read  there 
*'  is  the  moft  veritable  and  holy  that  ever  was  penned ; 
*'  and  that  all  the  doctrines  there  delivered  are  truly 
*'  from  above.'* 

You  might  then  with  good  reafon  fear  to  accufe 
this  learned  critick  of  impiety.  ''  Nothing  fays 
*"'  Chaufepied,  incenfed  him  more  than  the  charge  of 
*'  deifm  which  his  enemies  fometimes  laid  to  him, 
•'  certainly  without  juil  grounds.  We  may  judge  of 
*'  this  by  the  converfation  which  paflfed  between  him 
*'  and  Collins,  when  this  famous  Englifiiman  paid  him 
•'  a  vifit  in  Holland,  accompanied  by  fome  French 
*'  Freethinkers  like  himfelf.  They  thought  it  would 
"  be  eafy  to  ^ain  over  fo  bold  a  divine  to  their  fide, 
*'  but  he  flood  firm  for  revelation.  He  prefTed  thofe 
«'  deiftshard,  and  fliewed  them  that  they  diflolve  the 
"  ftrongeft  ties  of  humanity,  that  they  excite  men  to 
"  (hake  off  the  yoke  of  laws,  that  they  take  away  the 
"  mofl  powerful  incentives  to  virtue,  and  rob  the 
*'  world  of  all  irs  comforts.  And  what  do  you  fubfti- 
*'  tute  in  the  place  of  thefe  things  ?  added  he.  You 
"  flatter  yourfelves,  no  doubt,  (i)  that  flatues  will 
"  be  erefted  to  you  for  the  mighty  fervices  you  have 
"  done  mankind  ;  but  I  muft  declare  to  you  that  the 
*'  part  you  acl  will  render  you  odious  and  contempti- 
*'  ble  in  the  fight  of  all  men!"  What  leflbns  thefe 
are,  fir,  may  all  Collinfes  of  our  days  profit  by  them! 

(l)  fbaifatvei -aiill  be  ereBti.  We  have  been  wrongfully  cliarped  with 
malice  f«)i"  iril'trtm^  the  above  (juutation.  Vt'lien  we  wrote  this  Ittttr  fht-re 
was  no  talk  of  the  ftatui-  of  our  lilullrious  writer,  nor  of  that  one  on  account 
•f  which  he  fo  bitterly  inveighs  a^ainft  the  citizen  of  Geneva,  as  tliis  latter 
icemcd  to  think  hinifc'rf  worthy  of  it.  Tlie  priority  of  our  quotation  is  a  pood 
fxroofthat  we  liiti  not  intend  to  make  any  malicious  allufions-  Cmihi  we  lote- 
fc<:  that  our  phiiofophcrA  Would  have  hud  fuch  a  Ibung  dclirc  for  its* 
(IKS  I      -^ut. 


«ERTAIN       Jliri.     '  123 

-  '  §  4.  Newton's  0^/«/on. 

We  fhall  fay  nothing  of  the  opinions  of  Newton  on 
the  authors  of  the  book"?  of  Jajhua^  judges^  Ruth^ 
&c.  We  have  not  taken  this  tafk  upon  us,  and  we  al- 
low it  to  be  very  difficult  to  point  out  the  dates  and 
the  authors  of  thofe  books. 

As  to  the  Pentateuch,  this  great  man  thought  that 
divers  facts,  fuch  as  the  copy  found  in  the  temple  in 
the  reign  of  Jofias  ;  the  Levites  fent  by  Jehofaphat 
with  the  law,  to  teach  it  in  the  city  of  judea  ;  the  at« 
tachment  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  the  refpeft  they  paid 
to  thefe  facred  writin:^s,  even  fince  their  feparation  ; 
and  la'tly,  the  eltablifiiment  of  public  worfhip,  in  the 
times  of  Solomon  and  David,  in  a  manner  fo  folemn 
and  fo  conformable  to  the  rites  prefcribed  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, will  not  permit  us  to  throw  back  the  compi- 
lation of  it  farther  than  therei;^n  of  vSaul.  He  there- 
fore fuppofed  that  the  book  of  the  lav.-  had  been  lofl 
when  the  Phili (lines,  after  conquering  the  Ifraelires, 
got  pofieffion  of  the  ark.  That  in  order  to  repair  this 
lofs,  Samuel  had  gathered  together  v/hat  remained  of 
the  writings  of  Mofes,  and  the  Patriarchs,  and  that 
with  thefe  materials  he  had  compiled  the  Pentateuch 
in  the  form  in  which  we  now  fee  it. 

Upon  thefe  things  v/e  (hall  obferve,  i  (l,  Tliat  this 
■whole  fyftera  is  built  upon  an  ungrounded  fuppofition 
and  vague  conje£lures.  No  doubt  the  name  of  the 
great  Newton  fhould  always  be  mentioned  with  rc- 
fpefl.  But,  however,  this  great  name  cannot  con- 
vert fuppofitions  into  facts,  and  conjectures  into 
proofs. 

2dly,  That  this  fydem,  as  it  fuppofcs  the  book  of 
the  law  to  have  been  written,  and  memorials  for  aii 
hlflory  left  by  Mofes  and  the  Patriarchs,  contrao'ids 
all  thofe  empty  notions  and  falfe  reafonings  with 
which  the  former  part  of  vour  note  is  filled. 

3dly,  That  although  Newton  thought  the  Penta- 
teuch v.-as  compiled  by  Samuel,  he  was  far  from 
charging  the  accounts  in  it  with  abfurdity,  as  your 
incredulous  criticks  have  prefumed  to  do.     The  re* 


124  .r.    L    E    -r    T    E    R    S       OP 

fpetSl  which  this  learned  man  had  for  the  facred  writ-' 
ings  during  his  whole  life  is  well  known.  "  This 
"  great  man,  fays  Mr.  Fonteneile,  did  not  rcfl  mere- 
"  ly  in  natural  religion  ;  he  was  peri'ijaded  of  revela- 
"  tion,  and  among  thofe  various  volumes  which  he 
"  had  continually  in  his  hand,  that  v/hich  he  read 
*'  mod  conftantly  was  the  bible.'*  So  far  from  ftriv- 
ing  to  expofe  it  to  the  dcriiion  of  the  profane,  he  flu- 
died  it,  commented  upon  it,  and  laboured  to  clear  up 
the  difficulties  of  it. 

What  fhall  we  then  think,  fir,  of  the  manner  in 
which  you  fpeak  of  this  illuflrious  writer,  as  well  a^ 
of  the  learned  le  Clerc,  in  your  philofophy  of  hiilory? 
*'  God  forbid,  fay  you,  that  we  (hould  dare  to  accufe 
"  the  le  Clercs,  the  Newtons,  See.  kc.  of  impiety  ! 
^^  We  are  convinced  that  although  they  did  not  think 
"  the  books  ofMofes,  Jofhua,  &c.  v/ere  written  by 
*'  thefe  heroes  of  Ifrael,  yet  they  w^ere  perfuaded  that 
"  they  were  written  by  infpiration.  They  difcover 
*'  the  finger  of  God  in  every  line  of  Genefis,  Jofhua, 
"  5ic.  The  Jewifh  writer  w^as  but  the  fecretary  of 
*'  God  ;  God  didatcd  every  word  !  Newton,  no 
*'  doubt,  was  of  this  opinion.'*  We  underfland  the 
meaning  of  this  ironical  turn.  God  forbid  we  Ihould 
dare  to  accufe  you  of  calumniating  thofe  great  men  ; 
but  we  will  confefs,  that  if  any  thing  could  lelfen  the 
idea  we  entertain  of  your  probity,  it  would  be  the  o- 
dious  fufpicions  which  you  endeavour  to  give  us  of 
theirs. 

§    5.    Opinions    of    Shaftesbury  and  Boling- 

EROKE. 

All  the  learned,  of  whom  we  have  fpoke  in  the 
foregoing  fedlions,  whatever  may  have  been  tlieir  o- 
pinions  on  the  authors  of  tlie  Pentateuch,  and  on  the 
dates  of  thefe  books,  yet  give  an  implicit  aHent  to  the 
indubitable  facts  contained  in  them,  to  their  pura 
morality,  their  wife  laws,  and  believe  the  lawgiver  to 
have  been  Inflrucled.and  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Let  us  now  fay  fomething  of  thofe  who  have  no  other 
view  in  .denying  Mofcs  to  have  been  the  author  of  the 


c  E  R  T  A  J  N     Jews.  J  55 

l^untateuch,  and  m  cenfuring  its  pretended  abfurdi- 
ties,  thati  to  weaken  and  deltroy  th^  proofs  of  a  reve- 
lation. Criticks  whofe  notions  are  fo  different,  and 
whofe  ends  are  fo  oppofitej  fliould  not  be  confound- 
ed, nor  put  upon  the  fame  footing-. 

Shaftcpury,  if  we  believe  fome  of  his  learned  coun- 
trymen, was  an  enemy  of  revelation,  and  the  more 
d.ingerous  becaufe  in  his  attacks  he  (i)  feenio  to  pro- 
fefs  refpe^t.  He  never  attacks  it  face  to  face,  or  with 
ferious  arguments,  but  with  raillery  and  ironical  re- 
flexions, which  look  as  if  they  fell  by  chance.  He 
continually  protefls  that  "  he  firmly  believes  all  the 
"  facts  and  doctrines  which  are  difcovercd  by  revcla- 
''  tion.  He  is  convinced  that  our  religion  is  divine^ 
**  and  our  facred  writings  inrpired  ;  that  every  human 
**  underitanding  fliould  bow  down  to  them,  and  that 
*'  none  but  libertines  and  profane  men  could  abfo- 
*'  lately  deny,  or  difputc  the  authority  of  a  line,  or 
•'  a  fyllable  in  thefe  holy  books."  Tliis  is  a  kind  of  an 
attack  which  favours  more  of  cunning  than  of  can* 
dour,  and  more  of  ftratagem  than  of  true  learning. 
He  followed  the  method  of  fome  unbelievers  v/ho 
went  before  him,  and  other  modern  freetljinkers  like 
it  fo  muchj  as  you  well  knoW^  fir,  that  we  meet 
(2)  it  in  every  page  of  their  v*'ritings.  But  thefe? 
threadbare  (Iratagems,  this  old  way  of  making  war, 
cannot  deceive  any  body  now.  The  world  is  weary 
of  feeing  men  fighting  under  a  matk,  and  would 
think  an  open  attack  here  after  more  honourable^ 

R 

(l)   Zscm-s  to  prtfefsrefpeSi.    The  i'liiftrious  writer  vvhorii  we  anfwer,  fjyiin 

Jlis  N-juviJUX  ^L'.anges,X.\\■i.t  Sl.iftcfbury  fd' outJid  H.f-'ert  anil  Hohhci  inboilntft 
a'-lftlle  As  to  ftile  it  is  true;  but  zsU)  l/ulf '!.■/>■ ,  the  author  oi  tL-  M.ljn.<is  is 
tlie  only  writer  who  fays  it.  i\n\\  comes  ht:  to  he  f-"  litt  e  acquaitued  wuh  aii 
author  to  whom  lie  has  many  oh!i^»ations  ?  ShaftfflVury,  in  his  atrjcks  on  re- 
velation, ufrs  To  much  circuiiifpedioii,  hi  hiJes  ;jrnl  vvrips  himCcIf  n\>  fo  art- 
fully, that  fome  Icarncii  men  have  ccrifurcd  Doc'lor  [yclund  fur  hav/ng  plncc  J 
him  in  his  tifl  <«f  dciftica!  writtrs.  See  his  D.'illt  il  U^nt.r,  an  excellent 
w.iik,  where  he  gives  a  muc!i  jmlcr  acco'iiit  of  liie  Hn'rlilh  cL-ilN  t!ian  the  a^^. 
tiior  of /«  Mc/aii^.'t  He  prd'chts  you  witli  ah  extrncl  of  tf-.rir  v<)<irhs,  briefly' 
a.ifwcrs  the  r  o'->jciiion5,  and  v{aotts  thofe  writers  who  h.ive  a;ifwcr-J  thciu 
n>orc  fuhy.     £-'.■.'. 

(z)  In  evfrs  pii^!  ^f  tht'r --^r'.iipT^s.  In  t!'.'.rt=,  for  lit larjc ',  of  Mr.  Volta'r?.,- 
This  jjrer.t  m?.:!,  wiiilil  he  borrovs's  the  o'ljeiHioiis  and  riiiicrics  of  Shaltiflia- 
ry,  does  not  tii'.nk  it  bcntatli  hi;v,  to  imiute  hi*  littk  llratsgcnw.     C.'.-r{Jf,- 


126  Letter^     of 

We  may  then  fuppofe  that  Shaftefbury,  notwit^-* 
{landing  all  his  proteftations,  did  not  believe  the  Pen-- 
tateuch  to  have  been  written  by  Mofes,.or  any  other 
infpired  writer.  But  what  is  certain,  what  we  can 
Cifiirm,  after  having  read  over  all  his  treatifes  careful" 
ly  feveral  times,  is,  that  although  many  pafla- 
ges  are  found  there  which  may  have  ferved  you  for 
models  on  other  fubjecls,  we  cannot  point  out  one 
that  has  any  relation  to  the  arguments  in  your  note, 
on  the  imaginary  impofiibility  of  Mofes's  writing  that 
work,  or  the  pretended  abfurdity  of  the  facts  which 
he  relates.  Why  then  would  you  afcribe  fuch  things 
to  him,  and  quote  his  authority  when  you  are  doubt- 
ful of  it  ?  Some  careiefs,  indifferent  readers  may  be 
impofed  on,  but  no  one  can  be  deceived  who  will  take 
the  pains  to  recur  to  the  fources. 

Let  us  proceed  to  Bclingbroke,  He  was  not  like 
Shafteibury,  a  pleafmg  jefter  and  fecret  enemy  of  the 
revelatiD;!  which  was  made  to  our  fathers.  More  feri- 
ous  and  fincere,he  attacks  it  openly  and  without  difcre- 
lion  as  without  difguife.  He  fpeaks  fometimes  oi  the 
Chrillian  revelation  with  a  feeming  refped:  ;  but  as 
fo6n  as  the  Jewifh  comes  in  queflion,  and  efpecially 
the  books  of  Mofes,  (i)  he  exceeds  all  bounds  ;  the 
moft  indecent  invetlives,  and  the  falfeil  arguments 
flow  from  his  pen. 

When  we  read  his  Viforks,  we  fee  that  you  have 
tried  this  fpring,  and  have  not  hefitated  fometime^  to 
draw  from  it.  But  can  v>'e  help  being  furprifed  when 
we  find  that,  except  one  fhort  reflediion,^  nothing  at 
all  is  iound  in  his  works  of  what  you  make  him  i-;y 
i.n  your  note.  And  have  we  not  reafon  to  conclude, 
that  you  very  improperly  fubfcribed  his  name,  as 
well  as  that  of  Shafteibury,  to  that  heap  of  lalfe  alfer- 
tions  Vvith  vi'hich  you  have  filled  it. 

(l^    He  rxceyfj  all  /iO"n,,'t.      We  read  in  tlic  Kouveatix  Mel<i>ine.t,  tint   BcUr:*'^ 
hrote  is-,t  l/olii  tvriler,  that  hh  icrii'in^s  arc  i-io/trt,  thtit  he  dctcHcd  tte  Cbiinian  icti' 

gion.     Comp.irc  thtlc  vxpri.;sii)iis  and  conftflionb  wich  the  2-t.Jt'ut  oj  i,<ird  Ue-' 


-eKR-TAiTT     Jews.  iiy 

%  6.    Op'wions  of  CoLLiN-s  and  Tindal. 

Collins  and  Tindal -axg.  then  really  your  only  vouch- 
<crs,  ou't  of  all  the  writers  you  have  named.  And  yet 
we  know  not  but  they  might  be  diCputed. 

We  have  formerly  read  over  Collins' s  worhs,  and 

we   do  not  remember  to  have   found  the  arguments 

you  afcribe  to  him.  We  do  not  even  fee  what  relation. 

they  could  have  to  the  queflions  he  treats.     But  our 

memory  may  be  weak  as  well  as  our  conjectures. 

However,  this  writer  is  an  authority  which  we  will 
freely  refion  to  you.  We  know  how  often  his  coun- 
trymen  have  reproached  him,  (i)  proof  in  hand, 
"•  with  akering  texts,  with  adding  to,  and  retr^nch- 
*'  in.g  from  them  as  he  thought  proper,  then  bringing 
*'  thi  fe  mangled  parts  together  in  order  to  form 
*'  a  meaning  quite  dilFerent  from  that  of  the  author's 
*'  whom  he  quotes.  With  never  being  more  pofitive 
"•  than  when  he  is  in  the  wrong  ;  with  anfwering  the 
"  llrongell  proofs  only  with  cavils  and  poor  jokes." 
Thefe  features,  by  which  he  bears  a  ilrono-  Hkenefb  to 
fome  writers  of  the  fame  party,  are  not  thofe  of  a  fair 
critick,  who  fmcerely  fearches  for  truth  hinifelf, 
ihat  he  may  make  it  known  to  others. 

Of  all  Tindal's  works  we  have  not  had  it  in  our 
power  to  read  any  but  his  Chrijlianity  as  old  as  ths 
creation.  In  this  the  author  attacks  equally  the  JewiOi 
and  Chrilliaa  revelation.  He  there  cenfures  many 
palTages  of  our  facred  writings;  but  we  can  anfwer 
for  it  he  makes  none  of  thofe  difficulties  mentioned 
in  your  note.  We  obferved  befides  an  air  of  modera- 
tion kept  up  through  his  whole  work,  for  which  we 
owe  him  fome  thanks.  He  does  not,  in  any  place, 
give  way  to  thofe  abuiive  appellations  and  bitter  lal- 
Jies  which  other  writers  are  fubjeft  to,  and  which  al- 
ways are  the  figns  of  envenomed  fpirits  and  violent 
charaders. 


(l)  Proof  in  h.in.1.  See  efpeciaHy  wliat  the  BifTiop  of  Winchrfter  has  wrote 
fcirainll;  Ctilliiis,  ami  tVie  Icariipd  oblcrvations  of  Dr.  Bfntly  on  t.'ie  l:ifcuurfe 
»,i  Fnethinking  ■  They  were  tranflated  into  trench  by  Mr.  de  la  Chapptlle 
toljdei'  the  titie  af  FriponnerJe  hiiqj!  Ja^r-ctcndui  Ejjiriii  f(uts  cC Ai'^Uierre.      £Jit. 


128  Letters     op 

The  other  writings  of  this  free-thinker  are  only 
known  to  us  by  the  extraft  and  confutation  which 
Dr.  Leland  has  given  us  of  them.  As  this  learned 
man  confutes  none  of  thofc  objedions  which  you  a» 
fcribe  to  Tindal  in  your  note,  we  have  reafon  to  be- 
lieve that  he  never  made  them.  Had  you  been  furc 
that  they  were  his,  you  certainly  ought,  for  the  in- 
llruction  of  your  readers,  to  have  named  the  book  and 
page.  You  fay  fomewhere  ih2.X.you  do  not  likefiich  exati 
quotations.  You  certainly  have  good  grounds  for 
your  diflike  ;  and  yet  fuch  quotations  are  ufeful.  It 
is  true  that  attention  and  labour  are  required  to  ren- 
der them  exact,  and  you  have  other  things  to  mind 
beiides  comparing  paflages.     We  fee  it  plainly. 

Such,  fir,  have  been  the  opinions  of  the  writers 
quoted  in  your  note.  Judge  yourfelf  whether  you 
have  fet  them  forth  with  the  exactnefs  of  a  knowing 
critick,  and  whether  it  was  impartial  in  you  to  impute 
opinions  to  fome  which  they  never  held,  to  conceal 
the  change  of  opinion  of  others,  to  throw  out  doubts 
on  the  Imcerity  of  thofe,  and  to  afcribe  to  thefe  argu* 
ments  which  they  never  made  ?  &c.  &c.  Thefe  argu-^ 
inents,  therefore,  being  falfe,  are  not  fupported  by 
any  fatisfaftory  authority,  and  the  authenticity  of  the 
books  of  Mofes,  as  well  as  the  truths  of  thofe  fads 
"which  you  attack,  reft  on  a  folid  bafis. 

"  When  the  learned  and  the  ignorant,  princes  and 
*'  Ihepherds,  fhall  appear,  after  this  fliort  life,  before 
**  the  mafter  of  eternity,  each  of  us  will  then  wlih  to 
*'  have  been  juft,  merciful,  generous."  You  are 
right,  fir  ;  knowledge  will  not  avail  without  pra^ical 
virtue,  nor  faith  in  doctrines  without  the  obfervance 
of  duties.  "  No  one  will  pride  himfelf  in  having 
^'  known  precifely  in  what  year  the  Pentateuch  was 
"  written."  No,  certainly,  for  this  piece  of  knowr 
ledge  was  never  looked  on  in  the  light  of  an  obliga- 
tion. "  God  will  never  afk  us  whether  we  were  of 
"  the  opinion  of  the  Mazorites  againft  the  lalmud, 
-'  or  whether  we  may  not  have  miftaken  a  caph  for 
"  a   beth,  cr  a  ycd  for  a  van,"  ^:c,  &c.  No,  <;er- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  129 

talnly  ;  and  this  is  not  altogether  the  fubjeft  of  your 
note.  You  deviate  from  the  main  queftion,  or  you 
wifli  to  miHead  your  readers.  "  He  will  judge  us  ac- 
*'  cording  to  our  works,  and  not  according  to  our 
*'  proficiency  in  the  Hebrew.'*  Who  doubts  it  ?  But 
if  a  writer,  with  a  fuperficial  knowledge  of  this  lan- 
guage, and  of  the  hiitory  of  God's  people,  fhould  be 
hold  enough  to  rife  up  againft  his  facred  oracles,  and 
to  calumniate  his  word  ;  if  he  reprefented  the  books 
which  contain  it  as  an  ill-digefted  heap  of  falfe  facts, 
abfurd  (lories,  barbarous  adions,  &c.  &c.  if  he 
proftituted  the  mod  fhining  talents  in  ftriving  to  era- 
dicate from  the  heart  of  man  that  obedience  which  he 
owes  to  the  divine  laws,  would  he  not  be  guilty  in  the 
fight  of  God  ?  We.  propofe  this  queflion  to  you  the 
more  willingly,  becaufe  we  do  not  think  you  included 
in  it.  All  your  writings  are  full  of  proteftations  of 
your  fubmiflion  to,  and  refpedl  for  revelation.  We 
have  no  right  to  doubt  but  that  they  are  as  fmcere  as 
they  appear  edifying  to  us. 

We  are?  &c, 


^31^  LETTERS        01? 

LETTERS. 

On    the  reproach  luhich  the  author  caJIs  on  the  ancient 
jfews,    that  bejliality  was  common  among  them. 


I 


N  the  latter  part  of  your  pretended  v.fcful  note, 
you  no  longer  fpeak  after  the  real  or  fuppofed  opini- 
ons of  fome  celebrated  writers,  but  (i)c\fter  your 
own  fentiments.  You  pafs  fuddenly  to  a  text  of  Le- 
viticus, which  has  no  relation  to  the  queflions  you 
have  been  treatino^,  and  this  with  no  other  view  but 
to  vil  fy  a  people  whom  ycu  detefl.  From  hence 
you  take  occafion  to  lay  abominations  to  the  charge 
of  our  fathers,  the  mere  thought  of  which  ftrikes  one 
with  horror  ;  and  you  alTert  that  thefe  fliocking 
practices  were  not  only  known,  but  common  among 
ihem.  This  charge,  if  it  was  well  grounded,  ought 
to  make  the  world  look  on  them  as  the  moil  infa- 
mous nation  that  ever  exiiled  upon  earth. 

The  more  fcandalous  an  accufation  is,  the  more 
reafon  there  is  for  requiring  convincing  proofs  of  it. 
3f  yours  are  of  this  nature,  we  hereby  confeut  for 
-ourfelves  and  our  fathers,  may  their  memory  be 
bladed  before  the  univerfe,  and  may  the  fhame  of 
ihe  anceflors  fall  on  their  defcendants  !  But  if  gvery 
impartial  reader  fhall  find  them  weak  or  lalfe,  we 
appeal  to  your  own  equity.  Judge  yourfelf  what 
separation  you  owe  to  a  whole  nation  that  has  been 
lo  cruelly  and  unjullly  abuled. 

§  I  Whether  the  author  can  prove  by  the  i  Jth  chap- 
ter of  Leviticus^  that  the  crime  in  queJUon  was  common 
among  our  forefathers. 

The  Book  of  Leviticus,  you  fay,  fir,  orders  the  'Jc'ui's 
no  longer  to  worlhip  the  hairy  he-goats,  with  which  they 

{r)  ^fteryonr  otvn  jenl'imenls.  TvToiifieiir  Voltaire  docs  not  quote  Bolinp- 
brotie  htre  ;  and  yet  it  js  provable  that  he  horrowecl  friim  him  this  charge 
againft  oiir  fathers.  However,  Bolmt'hroUe  wns  nior<-  nioiltrate,  he  •  only 
charjjcs  the  Hebrews  with  i  fionmefi  to  this  vice,  i  lie  Fieiuli  writer  istiot 
£b  cautious.     £dit. 


Certain     Jews.  t^t 

^ave  co7nmitted  infamous  abvminations .     On    this    paf- 
fage  you  feem  firfl  to  lean.     But  in  good  earned  da 
you  think  it  clear  and  explicit  enough    to  found  fo 
weighty  an  accufation  on  it  ?  Is   it  very   certain  that 
it  niuil  be  underftood  in  the  fenfc   you  give  it,   and 
in  no  other  ?  This  I  think,   before   all  things,     you 
ought  to   have  been  fure  of.     Now   I  find  that  the 
Hebrew  word  which  you  tranilate  by  bairy^   has  nO' 
determined  fenfe  in  the  facred  language.    That  inany- 
ancient  verfion^,  the  Greek,  the  Vulgate,   the  Chai- 
daick,  and  many  learned  interpreters  and  commenta-- 
tors  give  it  different  fenfes.     That  fome  of  them  ren- 
der it  by  the  malevolent   and  the  de-vils  ;  others,  by 
'vanities  and  idols,  &c.     It  is  not  therefare  indifputa- 
ble  that  it  fignifies  only  the  hairy. 

But  although  -your  fenfe  of  the  word  fnould  be 
the  mod  probable,  or  even  the  only. true  onfe,  would- 
it  be  a  fufficient  proof  that  the  worfliip  of  (i)  he- 
goats  is  meant  in  the  text  ?  /snd  might  we  not  fay 
with  equal  probability  that  here  i-s  meant  the  worfnip 
of  monkeys,  cats,  dogs,  he.  in  fliort,  of  hairy  ani- 
mals in  general,  and  perhaps  in  particular  of  the  bult 
Apis,   which  the  Hebrews  had  been  lately  worihip- 

Here  are  already  fome  reafons  for  doubting.  But 
this  is  not  all.  The  Hebrev/  expreilion  which  figni- 
fies only,  after  whom  they  have  gone  a  luhcring,  and 
which  you  tranfiate  by  this  paraphrafe  with  which 
they  have  committed  infamous  abomimitions  ;  this  cx^ 
prelTion,  1  fay,  i^s  taken  by  a  great  number  of  the  mod 
learned  interpreters,  in  a  fenfe  purely  metaphorical^ 
and  fignifies  in  this,  as  in  many  other  parts  of  fcrip- 
ture,  fpiritual  whoredom,  the  dilloyaity  of  wavering 
minds,  who  abandon  the  vvorfaip  of  God,  for  that  of 

'       (l)    Hegaatt.      By  the    hiiry.    fays    Mr-    Voltaire    in  Ivs    Defcpfc  de    mon. 

dnele.  We  imift   abfolutely  un.'.errtaiid   hf-goats.      We  do  not  thinli  this  ot"  al" 
foU:ic  necclluy  ;  and  as  we  haw  feen  "above,  many  Irarncd  nun  have  doulir- 

edit.      It  iVcms  to  us  that  there  isin  this  cafe  only  a  piobaiVility.      Uiit  cvtit 

tliis  r-iife  docs  not  authorize  tlie  fcaudil  which  the  j.lulhioui  writu-  calls  o» 

fhe  aii.itfut  Jews.     JiiiV. 


132  Letters     of 

falfe  deities,  or  who  form  out  of  both  (i)  a  facrilci 
gious  union.  Might  not  the  authority  of  thofe  learn- 
ed men  be  a  good  counterpoife  to  your's  ? 

We  (hall  add  that  this  metaphorical  fenfe  feems 
better  connected,  than  the  literal  one,  with  what 
goes  before.  God,  in  this  paflage,  forbids  the  Ifra- 
elites  to  offer  their  viftims  in  any  other  place  tlian 
before  the  tabernacle  :  To  the  end,  fays  the  text,  that 
the  children  of  Ifrael  may  bring  their  facri/ices,  ivhicb 
they  offer  in  the  open  field,  eve7i  that  they  may  b  ring 
them  unto  the  Lord^  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  unto  the  prieft.  And  the  priefl  JJoall 
fprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  And 
they  Jh all  no  mare  offer  their  facrifices  unto  devils,  or 
idols,  or  if  you  pleafe  to  the  hairy,  which  this  faith- 
lefs  people  worfliipped.  This  paiTage,  thus  tranflat- 
ed,  prefents  yo'u  with  a  natural  and  cornplcte  fenfe* 
The  facrifices  which  the  Hebrews  were  hereafter  to- 
offer  to  the  Lord  before  the  tabernacle,  are  put  ini 
oppofition  to  thofe  which  they  had  offered  to  devils, 
or  to  the  hairy  in  the  open  field.  On  the  contrary, 
nothing  requires  or  introduces  the  fenfe  which  you. 
think  proper  to  fubftitute,  and  which  the  ancient  in- 
terpreters never  knew. 

We  grant  fir,  that  fome  learned  commentators 
have  underdood  this  paffage  (2)  in  your  ieni'e  ;  but 
as  others,  not  lefs  learned,  more  ancient,  and  more 
numerous,  interpret  it  othervvife,  it  would  have  becrt 
but  fair  in  you  not  to  conceal  this  difference  of  opini- 
ons. Although  it  might  liave  taken  from  your  proofs, 
yet  your  criticifm  would  have  looked  more  impar- 
tial. 

LTpon  the  whole,  none  of  thofe  learned  men  have' 
inferred   from    the   text,    that    thefe    abominations 


(i)  A fjcri'eglou:  union  Mr.  Voltaire  himfelf,  fpraVinj;  of  th*  ?»i^?.'c'irs 
of  J'Tufalcni  and  ijamaria,  fays  that  th.-fc  ofiujlaciis  wcrt  ofun  lipnfjntcd  s: 
tvhireiiim,  at  <ilultery  !     ^>mI. 

(2)  Jnyeinfcitjs.  Some  Commentators  liavc  had  odJ  notions.  Thffe  r?.'- 
tiratar  opinions  are  always  adtipt-d  l)y  tic  critick,  and  reprcfentrd  as  the  aC- 
ri-ral  opinion.  By  this  means  he  cafts  a  ridicule  ou  the  text.  He- gr-f di  y 
fciz;»fi>ch  opportitnitics.     Poor  ftrata^eni  !     Elit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  133 

were(i)  common.  This  conclufion,  which  certainly 
does  not  How  from  the  premiles,  was  left  ior  you  to 
draw. 

§  2.  Whether  the  cujlom  of  forcer  ers  ivor  (hipping  an 
he  goat,  is  deri-vedfrom  the  ancient  Jeivs. 

We  have  juil  feen,  fir,  that  your  firlT:  proof,  fup- 
ported  by  an  obfcure  text,  fufceptible  of  various 
meanings,  is  by  no  means  conclufive.  Nevertnelefs 
as  if  it  was  inconteftible,  you  look  into  it  for  the  cri^ 
gin  of  that  infamous  worfhip  which  you  charge  upon 
our  fathers.  And  you  feem  to  infmuate  that  they 
were  the  authors  of  it. 

You  go  on.  (2)  We  cannot  fay  whether  this  Jlrange 
ivorfhip  cajue  from  Egypt  ^  the  native  country  of  for  eery 
andfuperfiition,  but^  ilfc,   ^c. 

We  know,  fir,  that  that  part  of  Egypt  which  was 
inhabited  by  the  Jews,  was  not  far  dillant  from  the 
nome  or  canton  of  Mendes,  and  that  the  people  of 
this  nome  worfliipped  he-goats.  Plutarch,  Strabo, 
Pindar,  &c.  who  informs  us  of  this,  have  alfo  told 
us  the  abominations  which  fometimes  accompanied 
this  worfhip.  Therefore  we  know,  or  at  leall  have 
good  reafon  to  fufped,  that  if  fome  of  the  Hebrews 
gave  thcmfelves  up  to  thefe  horrid  fuperilitions,  they 

S 

(1)  }Vert  eemmon.  According  to  Mr.  Voltaifs,  defenp  de  mon  tncle,  hhuti' 
tie  aflerted  that  this  adl;  had  been  very  untomrmn  in  the  'vild^rnefs.  Accord- 
ing to  himfeif  in  his  note,  it  was  common.  How  ihaU  v.-e  reconcile  the  uncle 
and  the  nephew  ?     Edii- 

(2)  IVe  cannot  fay.  Mr.  Volt,aire  fays  here,  that  it  is  uncertain  whether 
this  flraiige  worihip  came  froniEgypt,  and  in  h\s  :leftnfe  dtmcn  oncle,  he  affcrts 
that  this  cupom  'ifiuorjhipping  an  he-goal,  IS  c.  comes  f'^om  the  Hebrtivs^  tuho  ior* 
raited  it  Jrom  the  Egyptians.  T^hxis  tte  cannot  fuy,  and  yet  tve  an  certain.  The 
learned  critick  has  the  art  of  reconciling  certainty  and  doubt  w'th  regard  to 
the  fame  objeif^s. 

The  reafon  he  gives  to  /hew  that  the  Jevrs  borrowed  this  cuftom  from  the 
Egyptians  is  curious.  It  is,  he  fays,  becaufc  il/e  Jc.i's  never  invinted c-jy  tbinv. 
"We  d&  rot  envy  the  Egyptians  the  glory  of  fuch  inventions  ;  but  we  couid 
vifti  from  our  hearts  that  Mr  Voltaire  cculd  agree  a  little  better  with  him- 
feif, of,  according  to  the  Englif.i  phrafe,  could  be  a  little  Itfs  inconjlj'.' 
tent.      Edit. 

A  propo9  Mr.  Voltaire  renders  this  EnyliiTi  word,  in  his  defen  c  of  Lord 
Boliugbroke  by  the  word  impijjih'.e.  'lliis  is  a  fmall  miP.ake  ;  i'nirniifiiteiit 
does  not  fignify  inipcHlble,  it  is  applied  to  a  man  who  contraiiids  himlcif,  or 
to  things  incompatible,  or  '«  contra. lieTory  propofuions.     R,!it. 

See  alfo  the  poem  nn  Lifiiun,  whcrt  the  author  quotes  in  Lis  note?,  a  paf- 
fagv  of  Sba/iejlury  i  churaifterifticks,  and  fall*  into  the  fame  ajiltake.     Ci'iji 


i;^4  L    S    T    T    E    R    S      O   7 

may  have  been  led  into  it  by  the  example  of  the  I^g^'p* 
tians,  and  that  this  Jirange  worjhip  may  probably 
have  come  from  them. 
**  But  It  h  -fuppojcd  that  the  cujloin  among  our  pretend' 
ed  forccrers  of  going  to  nocliirnal  meeiings^  for  the  pur- 
pofe  of  isorftjipping  an  he~goat,  and  of  giving  thenf elves 
lip  to  fueh  inconceivable  uncleannefs  ivith  it,  as  is  fhock- 
ingto  conception^  came  from  the  cncioit  fcws. 

it  is  fnppofed.  Such  are  your  proots,  fir,  it  is  fv.p- 
pofed.  You  are  free  to  believe  this,  and  others  are 
as  free  to  believe  the  contrary. 

The  cujiom  among  our  pretended forcerers^  if  they 
^xz  pretended  forcerers,  the  nofturnal  meeting  mull 
be  a  pretended  one  too,  the  worflnp  of  the  he  goat 
pretended,  all  then  is  pretended,  and  nothing  real. 
This  is  a  fine  foundation  for  fo  weighty  a  charge  ! 

Befides  the  ancient  Jews,  as  you  fay  in  many 
places,  acknovjledged  neither  good  nor  bad  angels,  and 
confequently  no  fatan,  no  devil.  How  then  could 
the  cuifom  of  worfliipping  him  under  the  figure  of 
an  he-goat  come  from  theni  ?  Certainly  men  ii-ho  ds 
i^.  ?iot  acknoivlcdge  the  devil,  cannot  worjhip  the  deviL 
Thefe  abfurd  reproaches  are  ( i )  intolerable  ! 

But  you  fay,  they  taught  magic  in  a  great  part  of 
Europe.  What,  the  ancient  Jews  ?  they  who  did 
not  acknov/lcdge  the  devil,  taught  magick  I    , 

At   mod:,  thele   could   be  only    lleleniPtick  Jews, 
%;jho  were  inflruflad  in  the  opinions  of  the  Greeks,  and 
'u^ho  ivorfnipped  devils  a  little  before   (2)  the  reign  of 
Herod,     But   the   fuperiUtions   of  thofe  Ilelenillick 

d)   yiic  hiKleralU      In  thcff  very  wrrdfi,  IVr   Vi'taire  j,i;Pifes  tJie    Erac- 
ri.ti's  a^r'Jiiift  the  uitat  R'  uITtau.     Sec  additions  to  the  Uiiivtriai  Hilhiiy. 

Hr;  altii!,  tllat  ihr  cle.'-jil  hm  never  Lien  ti  crjl^ipp.j  in  ai>\  p.rl  (if  tic  -.loLi.' 
H<.>w  does  lie  remiicile  thisaficilton w'tl)  what  he  fdys  of  the  ancient  Jt  vvs, 
■who  accordin,?  f"  liim,  hd'uved  in  no  ifevils,ind  yei  "v-orjlij-jied  lie  devil.  Wc 
tliink  th;it  (oh  c  r/adcrs  will  fiifpeifl  hiin  fov  lulling  inu)  tlio  fai)it  uliJ"iir<iity, 
wliich  h<.*chitiges  on  Iiis  antngoiiift.  He  d<!es  not  ajipesr  to  h.avcaijy  ndvaii- 
ta;/i'  oViT  hin-.,c)i.cc'it  th.it  'tf   contradit'iin;;  hinifVlf  inire  clearly.      F.<1 :. 

{^)  Bffoi-e  !he  retail  of  Herod.  See  DiCtion.  Pliilofoj'h  He  ftys  in  aro- 
I'ner  place.  PhilofoDhit'  dc  1  Hiffoire,  article.  An^ss.  The  Jews  achiiowUdg- 
»  fd  n<t  d<..^i\f-  until  the  B't^'fliirifh  coptivity.  Tlcy  najiiiied  ttii  iktirine  j:fot,^  tht 
Per  Onus.  N'thin^  hul  iyiioiaiue  .injfanjl'ciffn  can  deny  tlejejjdis.  if  it  hao  ht<:n 
,iie  cxiTcr';  intent  of  tiiis  writ<r,  to  l.iy  do\"n  the  moll  comri'liiilory  Li'oj'uii- 
jioiis,  cuuld  he  havv  hud-bctttr  lucccfs  ?   Edit, 


C-E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    \V    5.  I35 

Jews,  who  are  of  much  later  date  than  the  ancient 
jews,  are  no  proof  at  all  againlt  thefe  latter. 

In  fcort,  if  It  is  true  that  fome  of  the  modern 
Jews,  ba-ve  given  them/ehcs  out  for  jnagicians,  and 
taught  thcfe  abfurd  arts  in  Europe^  they  had  this  trade 
in  common  with  many  othsr  nations,  the  Babylo- 
nians, Egyptians,  the  Perfians,  and  even  with  fome 
philofophers.  For  philofophy  has  alfo  had  its  doc- 
tors in  magick,  its  maximins  and  iamblichufes,  who 
believed  in  enchantments,  and  publiflied  forms  ior 
raifmg  the  devil. 

TVhjt  a  naiim  !  fo  eatraordinarv  a  crime  fcemed  to 
deferve  a  puniJJsmcnt  equal  to  that  ivhich  the  golden 
calf  brought  en  them,  and  yet  the  lcg[flatcr  is  fatisjied 
'u.'ith  giving  them  only  a  Jimp'e  prohibition.  This  fact 
is  mentioned  7nerely  to  floo^uj  ivhat  the  fewifh  nation    /:•. 

But  read,  fir,  wiiat  Mofes  commands  on  this  (ub- 
jad  in  the  fame  book.  That  whoever  commits  any  of 
thcfe  abominations^  fjall  be  cut  ojf  from  the  midfi  of  his 
p:opU\  Leviticus,  ch.  12.  ver.  29.  And  that,  they 
Jhall  fur  el y  be  put  to  death  ^  their  blood  foall  be  vpon 
them,     ch.  20.  v.   15. 

So  extraordinary  a  crime  fcemcd  ta  deferve^  &:c.  he. 
You  are  too  mode!!:,  fir,  it  certaiidy  dtferves  it. 
Since  then  no  fach  thing  happened  to  them,  this  is  a 
proof  that  tliofe  abominations  were  never  praclifed, 
or  at  lead,  were  very  uncom.mon  amongft  the/n. 
This  is  the  only  fair  inference  from  thefe  premifes, 
but  you  on  the  othe?  hand,  fir,  hence  conclude  that 
ihcfe  pollutions  were  common  amongft  them. 
•  If  a  man  was  to  reafon  according  to  your  lo,-;ic 
about  the  fhcpherds  of  Calabria,  and  cry  out.  What 
a  nation  thefe  Calabrians  !  This  fact  is  mentiojiedmcrc- 
h  to  fljcw  ivhat  the  Calabrians  are^  would  you  think 
this  argument  juft  ?  Did  any  one  ever  forma  notion 
of  a  people  by  the  ill  conduct  of  a  few  individuals, 
more  efpecially  when  the  laws  condemn  this  ill  con- 
dua  ? 

§  3.  Whether  the  lazu  ivhich  forbad  bcjliality  among 
the  Jeivs,  is  an  evidence  that  this  crime  ii'as  common 
amongfl  ihenu 


135  Letters     of 

Bejiiality,  you  fay,  jnujl  ha've  been  common  amon^ 
ihe  ysws^Jince  this  is  the  only  nation  we  know.,  in  which 
the  laws  were  under  the  necejp.ty  of  prohibiting  a  crime, 
which  has  not  been  fufpe6ied  in  any  other  place,  by  any 
legijlator. 

No,  fir,  it  was  not  necefiary  that  thefe  monftrous 
pollutions,  fhould  have  been  common  among  the  Jews 
to  make  Mofes  forbid  them.  It  was  fufficient  that 
they  had  fpread  among  thofe  nations,  whofe  lands 
they  were  going  to  poifefs,  as  the  promifed  land,  to 
induce  the  legiilator  to  guard  his  people  againfl  thofe 
crimes,  by  clear  laws,  and  fevere  penalties.  Now 
this  is  the  motive  which  Mofes  himfelf  gives  for 
thefe  prohibitions. 

Defile  not  yotirfelves^  faith  he,  fpeaking  in  the  per- 
fon  of  God-,  in  any  of  thefe  things,  for  in  all  thefe  the 
tiations  are  defiled^  which  I  cafi  out  before  you.  Arid 
the  land  is  defiled^  therefore  I  do  vifit  the  iniquity  there- 
cf  upon  it,  and  the  land  itfelf  vo?uiteth  cut  her  inhabi- 
tants. Te  flmll  therefore  keep  my  flatuies  and  my  judg- 
weiits,  and  fdall  not  commit  any  of  thofe  abominations, 
V  either  any  of  your  own  nation^  nor  any  fir  anger  that 
fojourneth  among  you.  For  all  thefe  abeminations  have 
the  men  of  the  land  done  which  were  before  you,  and  ihe 
land  is  defiled,  a  hat  the  land  fpue  ?tot  you  out  alfo, 
when  ye  defile  it,  as  it  fpue  d  out  the  nations  that  were 
before  y^  u.  For  whofosver  fjall  co?n?nit  any  of  thefe 
abominations,  eiuiitihe  fouls  that  conunit  themffhall  be 
cut  off  from  among  their  people.  Therejore  Jhall  ye 
keep  mine  ordinance,  that  ye  commit  not  any  of  thefe  a~ 
bominable  cufloms,  which  were  committed  before  you, 
and  that  ye  defile  not  yourfclves  therein.  I  am  the 
Lord  your  God.   Levit.   ch.  18.  v.  24.  &c.  &c. 

And  lower.  And  ye  fhall  not  walk  in  the  manners 
cfthe  nations  which  I  cafi  out  before  you,  for  they  com" 
?nitted  all  thefe  things,  and  therefore  I  abhorred  the?n. 
Chap.  20.  V.  33.  &;c. 

Is  it  not  evident  that  the  legiflator,  fo  far  from  fup 
pofmg  this  crime  common,  or  even  known  among  the 
Hebrews,  manifefts  no  other  intention  but  to  pre^ 


CERTAIN     Jews.  ^37 

ferve  them  from  the  examples  which  they  were  go- 
ing to  have  before  their  eyes  ?  And  that  if  he  had 
forefeen  your  imputations,  he  could  not  have  ex- 
plained himfelf  more  clearly  in  order  to  prevent 
them  ? 

You  add,  that  the  "Jews  were  the  only  nation  we 
know,  in  which  the  laws  were  under  the  necejjity  of 
prohibiting  this  crime. 

But  I  ft,  fir,  have  you  a  very  extenfive  knowledge 
of  the  legillation  of  ancient  nations  ?  Are  there  ma- 
ny of  them  that  have  left  us  a  compleat  fyftem  of 
their  laws  ?  We  have  juft  fome  fcattered  wrecks  of 
thofe  of  Greece.  What  conclufion  then  can  you 
draw  from  all  thofe  codes  which  no  longer  exift  ?  E- 
ven  how  many  modern  nations  are  there  with  whofe 
laws  you  are  unacquainted  ? 

2dly,  It  is  well  knov.-n  that  this  crime  was  fpread 
over  Paleftine ;  ancient  hiftorians  inform  us,  that 
it  was  not  unknown  in  the  Indies,  and  to  the  fcan- 
dal  of  human  nature,  it  was,  in  feme  degree,  con* 
fecrated  by  religion  in  Egypt,  &c.  If  the  laws  of 
thofe  nations  prohibited  it,  then  the  JewiOi  nation 
was  not  the  only  one  in  which  the  legiflator  forbid 
it.  If  they  did  not,  I  alk,  which  of  thofe  were  the 
wifeft  laws,  thofe  which  were  filent  with  refpett  to 
this  pollution,  that  does  violence  to  humanity,  and 
which  they  knew  was  committed,  or,  thofe  which 
wiihed  to  prevent  it,  by  forbidding  it  under  the  fe- 
vereft  penalties  ? 

3dly,  It  was  exprefsly  forbidden  by  the  Roman 
laws  (i)  in  the  time  of  the  emperors. 

4thly,  But  let  us  go  no  farther  than  your  own  re- 
ligion, and  your  own  country.  When  I  look  over 
vour  treatifes  de  droit  crimineL  I  find  in  them  deci- 
fions  and  rules,  forms  of  proceeding  and  decrees  on 
this  fubject.     And  this  maxim  is  generally  received 

(l)  In  the  time  of  ihi  Emperors.  There  is  a  paflage  which  we  mud  quote 
from  memory,  as  we  have  not  thofe  laws  before  us.  In  eot  qui  venerem  -ver- 
ti:r.t  in  alteram  fermamjubemus  infurgtre  leges  Isf  armari gla-iio  ultare,  ut  debit's  punic 
fubdantur  iaf.imes.  Probably  tliis  is  the  paflage  which  wur  authors  iiaxc  ia 
view.     Sec  the  Civil  Law$  of  Duinat.     Ldit, 


138  Letters     of 

in  them,  that  this  crime  is  to  be  punifiied  by  the  moil 
cruel  death  in  ufe  amongfl:  you.  Surely  all  this  is 
equal,  in  effeft,  to  that  law  you  reproach  us  with  ! 

But  if  W'j  pafs  from  your  trcatifes  of  civil  law,  to 
your  books  of  ecclefiaftical  law,  we  fee  this  crime 
mentioned  every  where.  In  your  Penitential  Can- 
nons^ and  in  thofe  lilts  of  fins,  which  you  call  Exa- 
mens  de  Confcience,  and  in  your  canonills,  your  ca- 
fuifts,  your  moral  theologians,  &c.  from  the  letter 
of  Bafil  to  Amphilochius,  down  to  the  ecdefiaJUcal 
laws  of  Hericourt,  and  from  the  tax  of  the  Roman 
chancery  chamber,  down  to  the  cajus  refervati, 
which  are  printed  in  your  lad:  forms  of  prayer  a- 
bridged.  And  now  you,  a  Frenchman  and  a  Chrif- 
tian,  come  and  tell  us  that  the  Jewifh  nation  was  the 
only  one  in  which  this  crime  was  prohibited.  Tru- 
ly you  are  but  ill  acqi'ainted  with  the  two  kindi  of 
jurlfprudence  in  your  country  ! 

From  what  we  have  reported  of  your  laws,  we 
are  far  from  drawing  fuch  a  conclufion  as  you  do 
with  regard  to  our  fathers,  that  therefore  this  crime 
is  common  amongfl:  you.  No,  we  fee  that  this  confc-. 
quence  v/ould  be  unfair,  and  that  a  law  which  prohi- 
bits an  infamous  crime,  is  by  no  means  a  proof  that 
this  crime  \%  common  among  the  people  to  whom  this 
prohibition  is  given.  The  drawing  fuch  a  conclufion 
from  the  prohibition  given  to  the  Jews,  is  fliewing  a 
partiality  the  more  cruel,  as  by  this  very  law,  the 
legiilator  feems  to  juftify  his  people,  and  only  to  ac- 
cufe  the  neighbouring  nations. 

§  4.  Whether  the  refulcnce  of  the  Hebrews  in  the 
wildernefs  cculd  be  the  caufe  of  that  pronenefs^  which 
the  author  afcrihes  to  them^  towards  thefe  tranfgrcjfons. 
That  the  law  which  excepts  marria'geable  women  from 
maffacres^  does  not  prove  that  women  were  wanting  in 
thf  wildcrnefs. 

There  is  ret  f on  to  believe^  you  fay,  that  by  the  fa^- 

ti^ucs  and  dij}re[fes  which  the  fews  fujfcrcd  in  the  de- 

frts  of   Paran,  Iloreb    and  Cada-Brirne,  theft  male 

/pedes     may    have    failed  totally.     It  is   clccir   that 


CERTAIN     Jews.  139 

the  Jeivs  mujl  have  ivanted  ijuowen^  fincethq  are  al- 
ways commanded  to  kill  every  thing  except  marriageabk 
ivojnen.  The  Jrabs,  ivhojiill  inhabit  part  of  thofe  de- 
ferts^  alivays  Jiipulate  in  the  treaties  which  they  make 
li'iththe  Caravans,  that  they  Jhall give  them  marriage- 
able ivomen. 

There  is  rcafon  to  believe,  Thu>  to  eHinblifli  a 
fact  which  would  require  the  O.roiigcfl  proof*?,  ycu 
lire  reduced  to  behefs  and  probabilities  1  And  what 
fort  of  probabilities  too  ! 

We  cannot  deny  that  our  fathers  experienced 
fatigues  and  diftrefles  in  the  wildernefs,  of  which 
they  often  complained.  But  as  we  have  before  ob- 
ferved,  thefe  hardfliips,  v/hich  you  are  pkafed  to 
exaggerate,  amounted  only  to  this,  that  they  tra- 
velled four  or  five  hundred  leagues  in  forty  years. 
Was  tliis  fufricient  to  make  the  female  fpecies  totally 
fail  ?  As  to  the  v/ants  which  they  experienced,,  fcrip- 
ture  informs  us,  that  as  foon  as  they  became  ur- 
gent, God  relieved  them,  with  a  fatherly  gcodnefs. 
That  providence  fupplied  every  thing  they  need- 
ed. That  they  had  a  fufficiency  of  food,  raiment, 
and  of  every  thing  ehe.  Nihil  iliis  dcfuif,  fays  your 
vulgate  verfion.  Where  then  was  this  fatal  and 
deOruclive  penury,    of  which    you   talk  fo  loud  ? 

//  is  clear  that  the  y'e'-jjs  mvji  have  zoanted  zvQ' 
wen  Jtnce  they  are  alzcajs  commanded  to  referve,  l5fc. 
zsfc.  It  is  not  given  to  us,  to  fee  the  juftncfs  of 
this  conclufion.  If  the  Jews  were  always  command- 
ed to  fpare  marriageable  wom.en,  this  was  not  becaufe 
they  v/anted  women,  but  becaufe  there  never  are 
too  many  women  where  polygamy  is  permitted,  as  it 
was  among  our  fathers. 

The  example  of  the  .-rabians,  which  you  produce 
in  your  favour,  proves  I  think  direftly  againll  you. 
Pray,  fir,  have  the  Arabians,  no  women,  or  have 
the  fatigues  of  the  icilderncfs  made  ibc  female  fpecies 
toi  ally  fail  arnongfl  them,  every  time  they  flipulaie 
for  a  gift  of  marriageable  women  ?  No  certainly, 
but  the  plurality  of   wives,  which   their  law  autho- 


i46  Letters     OF 

rizes,  has  at  all  times,  rendered  the  female  fpecieS 
precious  amongfl  them. 

For  this  fame  reafon,  the  permlfTion  granted  to  the 
Ifraelites,  of  referving  marriageable  women,  was 
not  confined  to  that  fpace  of  time,  in  which  they 
fojourned  in  the  wildernefs,  but  was  extended  to 
all  times,  although  probably  they  could  not  always 
be  in  want  of  women,  by  reafon  of  the  fatigues  and 
d'ljlreffes  of  the  ivildernefs. 

And  when  you  fay,  that  it  was  a  perpetual  injunc" 
iion  to  the  Ifraelites^  to  kill  every  thing  except  marri' 
ageable  wmien^  you  either  err  again  or  you  know- 
ingly give  your  readers  a  falfe  idea  of  our  laws. 
No,  fir,  thefe  fanguinary  orders  where  not  always 
given  us.  We  fhall  foon  have  occafion  (i)  to  prove 
this  to  you.  And  even  when  we  were,  on  certain 
occafions  ordered  to  kill  all  except  women,  marri- 
ageable women  were  not  the  only  ones  excepted  from 
the  {laughter.  The  exception  com.prehended  all  (2) 
•  maidens^  reckoning  from  their  earliefl  years.  Thefe 
words  are  by  no  means  fynonimous  ;  the  one  has 
fomewhat  more  extent  than  the  other,  and  '  it 
would    have  been  proper  (3)  not  to  confound  them. 

Thus,  fafts  at  leaft  doubtful,  an  obfcure  text 
which  fo  far  from  proving  that  thefe  crimes  were 
common  among  the  Hebrews,  fcarcely  infers  the 
fxiftence  of  them,  and,  laftly,  a  prohibition,  the 
motive  of  which,  clearly  exprelfed  in  the  law,  con- 
tradicts your  inference  from  it.  Thefe  are  the 
grounds  of  a  fliocking  accufation  ! 

(l)  T*  prove  this  io  y»u-  Scc  below,  Letltrt  en  tie  divine  lain  of  the 
jews.  A  perpetual  injundian,  to  till  every  thin^  except  fnartiageaUe  tiomen. 
We  do  not  underftand  Mr.  Voltaire.  How  catT  a  man,  vAt  loves  truth, 
'propofe  coolly  and    fo    often  repeat"  fuch   falfe  afTertions  !     £Jit. 

(a)  All  maidens.  Mr.  Voltaire  fays  in  another  place,  that  the  cvjlom  cf 
lis  TJraelites    ivas  to  referve  all  maidens.      -Aut, 

(3)  Not  to  confound  them.  Yes,  but  it  was  the  illurtrious  writer's 
intercft  to  do  it.  He  waiu<.d  to  rcprefent  our  fathers  as  Bariarians,  and 
the  prorf  becomes  (Irorgcr  by  limiting  the  perfoni  to  be  fparcd,  when  ci- 
Itics  were  ftornicd  to  marriageable  women.  This  lamentation  is  falfe, 
contraui(5led  tjy  our  facred  writings,  and  by  his  own  confufion.  But  true  or 
fiilfe,  every  thing  i«  ufcful  when  the  Jews  arc  to  be  dcdainxd  agaiuft. 
'MtliJj- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  r^i 

You  mufl  have  been  confcious  to  yourfcif,  of 
the  falfehood  of  thofe  imputations.  You  mufl:  have 
perceived  it  better  than  any  one.  But  no  matter, 
the  Jews  are  detelled,  and  they  mull  be  rendered 
odious,  under  the  moil  trifling  pretences.  To 
calumniate  them  is  a  p^.eafure,  and  the  anuifement 
of  your  tender  philofophy.  Alas,  fir,  what  delight 
can  a  feeling  mind  take  in  abufmg  an  unhi'.p- 
py  nation  !  O  apodle  of  toleration  and  humanity, 
is  it  thus  that  you  put  in  pradice  that  univerlal 
benevolence  which  you    preach  1 

It  is  time,  you  fay,  atfedionately  to  your  (i) 
countrymen,  it  is  t'mis  that  ive  jhould  drop  that  odious 
cujhm  of  calumniating  all  feels ^  and  infulting  all  na- 
tions. We  hope,  fir,  that  you  will  vouchfafe  to  let 
them  an  example  of  this  in  your  new  edition  ;  and 
that  by  the  help  of  more  knowledge  and  lefs  preju- 
dice, you  will  give  glory  to  that  truth  which  you  love, 

.  We  remain,  &c.  kc. 


(i)  To  year  countrymer.,    %'iz    the  additions  to  the   Universal   Hiflorv, 
fage  I  a.     A"i. 


LETTERS 

FROM 

CERTAIN        JEWS 

O  F    T  H  E 

GERMAN  and  POLISH  SYNAGOGUE;, 

at  Amsterdam, 

To     Mr.     VOLTAIRE. 
iS  E  C  p  N  D     PART. 

Containing  fome  Observations  on  the  two  Chap- 
ters of  the  Treatise  on  Toleration,  which 
cencern  the  Jews. 

LETTER     L 

Scope  of  this  Second  Part* 
S  I  R, 


I 


F  any  one  on  the  earth  can  wifli  well  to  toleratlotlj 
it  mud  be  an  unfortunate  people,  whofe  religion  has 
expofed  them  for  fo  many  centuries  to  tfie  mofl 
difpiriting  contempt  and  molt  cruel  perlecution. 
Romans,  Perfians,  Saracens,  Chriftians,  Mahome- 
tans, every  nation  and  htx  have  fuccefiively  raifed 
itsarmagainflus,andfroni  the  Nile  to  the  Villulii,froni 
the  Tagus  to  the  Euphrates,  every  country  has  {q^ix 
our  blood  flowing.  Mult  not  thofe  who  have 
been  fo  often  the  melancholy  victims  of  fuperftiti- 
on  deteft  its  fury  r 


144  Letters     of 

We  are  very  far  then,  fir,  from  condemmngthofe 
principles  of  univerfal  toleration  which  are  fcattered 
thro'  your  trcatife.  On  the  contrary,  thofe  very 
principles,  that  fpirit  of  indulgence  which  runs 
through  it,  thofe  mild  counfels  which  you  give  to 
rulers,  endear  it  to  us,  and  make  us  fond  of  it,  and 
caeer  to  read  it,  notwithilandinj]:  the  invectives 
which  you  throw  out  in  it  againll  our  fathers  and 
ourfelves. 

Neither  the  violence  of  your  prejudices,  nor  the 
obflinacy  of  your  hatred,  fiiall  make  us  lofe  figh-t  of 
jufticc.  We  freely  acknowledge  that  your  work  dif- 
plays,  in  fome  parts,  the  colouring  of  a  great  mailer, 
and  the  wife  views  of  a  philofopher,  who  is  a  friend 
to  human  nature.  Who  can  read  without  tears 
the  fatal  ftory  which  gave  (i) birth  to  your  tre;^tife  ! 
Or  who  can  view  without  horror  the  pi6lures  you 
draw  in  it  of  fanaticifm !  So  many  afl'afTinations, 
mail'acres,  bloody  wars,  which  this  monfter  has  pro- 
duced in  your  o\vn  country,  and  in  the  reft  of  the 
world  !  What  a  pity  it  is  that  fo  interefling  a  lubjeft 
can  not  come  before  the  reader,  without  a  mixed 
crowd  of  reflexions  foreign  to  the  fubjecl,  of  doubtful 
fadls,  of  confufed  ideas,  and  grofs  errors,  which 
one  cannot  avoid    looking   upon  as  voluntary  ! 

It  is  the  province  of  men  of  letters,  and  of  Chri- 
flians,  to  point  out  thole  errors  which  may  be  found 
in  this  work  concerning  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
Romans,  the  Chriftians  and  their  martyrs,  even 
concerning   the  hiftory   of  your  own  country,  &g. 


&c. 


But  there  are  two  chapters  in  it  which  although 
they  arc  far  below  the  reit  of  the  work,  yet  deferve 
a  particular  attention  from   us.     They  are   thofe  in 


fl)    Ca'^.'c  Ihlh  to  your  trrai'ift-       Th-  f''*'''"'-^'*''"   ^'''C^^   Mr     Voltaire  hzs 

.  given  to    tlie  iiuiortnt  and   uiit'ortuiiate   family   in   qucftjou,  wlxini     lie  lins 

•  luppoittd   liy  liih  credit,  anil   ilcfciiJcd  by  liis  eloijucHt  w  ritirip;s,  is  a  n«  ble 

paffage  in  tlie  i:fc  of  thi«  iJKilh-ious  writer,  and  liis  highcll   triumph.     Kont 

can  i(jin   ir.ore    fincerely    in  tlie  iiiiiverfal  apjilaufe  due    to  i;iin  tiiaii  we  do. 

He   was   tLc  fizft.  who  latltd  his  voice  in  the   favour  cf  inaocer.cc.     A.^t, 


CERTAIN     Jews,  145 

which  you  ftrive  to  prove  ^  toleration  by  the  exam- 
ple of  the  Jewifli  nation.  We  have  found  fo  ma- 
ny miftakes  in  them,  or  rather  (the  word  efcapes 
us)  fa  many  falfehoods  of  every  kind,  concerning^ 
objects  which  cannot  be  indifferent  to  us,  that  we 
have  thought  ourfelves  under  a  neceffity  of  anfwer- 
ing  them.  This  fhall  be  the  fubjecl  of  the  fecond 
part  of  thofe  letters. 

We  cannot  infifl  on  this  too  openly.  We  are 
enemies  to  perfecution,  not  only  through  intereft,  but 
alfo  by  character  and  principle  ;  and  we  do  not  by 
any  means  attack  the  principle  of  toleration.  We 
only  mean  to  fhew  you  that  you  give  bad  proofs  of 
it.     This  is  our  firft  point. 

But  whoever  will  read  over  your  two  chapters, 
with  any  degree  of  attention,  will  perceive,  that 
befides  the  end  which  you  openly  profefs,  you  have 
another  in  view,  which  though  not  lefs  apparent, 
is  not  lefs  real.  You  want  to  bring  under  this  head, 
as  well  as  you  can,  a  heap  of  little  cavils  againft 
our  facred  writings,  which  you  fqueeze  in  right  or 
wrong.  As  thefe  fmall  criticifms,  coilecled  out  of 
Bolingbroke,  Morgan,  Tindal,  kc.  (who  them- 
felves  borrowed  thefe  from  others)  are  vour  chief 
lludy  ;  we  fhall  confider  them  with  proper  atten- 
tion. As  you  are  never  weary  of  repeating  them, 
we  mult  not  be  weary  of  anfwering  them.  This  n 
our  fecond  point  in  view. 

,  We  give  you  this  affurance  in  fincerity,  fir,  it 
hurts  us  much  to  attack  a  writer  whom  we  could 
wifli  rather  to  admire.  But  that  very  fuperiority  of 
talents  you  poffefs,  is  to  us  a  fufficient  reafon  for  our 
not  being  filent.  We  have  too  often  experienced 
that  the  name  of  a  great  m.an  may  give  authority 
to  error,  and  (trcngth  to  prejudice. 

We  remain,  Avith    the  flrongeft   fentiments   of  ef- 
teem  and  rcfped,  ^c 


14^  L  E  T  T  E  R  s     or 

LETTER      II. 

Confide  rat  ions  on  the  ritual  laws  cf  the  Jews* 

U  NDER  pretence  of  proceeding  methodlcaHy,-  in 
your  two  chapters,  you  begin,  fir,  by  fome  prelimi- 
nary jefledions  on  our  divine  law.  You  artfully 
take  this  occafion  of  cenfuring  it.  We  fhall  take 
this  opportunity  of  defending  it.  By  what  we  fhali 
fay,  you  will  be  enabled  to  fee  how  juft  your  criti- 
cifms  are. 

§  I .  Whether  it  is  inconceivable  that  God  Jhould 
have  given  7nore  commands  to  Mofes  than  to  Abra- 
ham, and  more  to  Abraham  than  to  Noah. 

You  begin  by  one  of  thofe  ironical  flrokes  which 
you  look  upon  as  vidorious  reafoning,  with  a  view 
to  throw  a  general  doubt  on  the  divinity  of  our  le- 
giilation.  '*  Let  us  not  prefume  to  enquire  here, 
"  you  fay,  why  it  pleafed  God  to  fubftitute  a  new 
"  law  in  the  place  of  that  which  he  had  given  to 
"  Mofes,  and  why  he  gave  more  commands  to  Mo- 
"  fes  than  to  the  patriarch  Abraham,  and  more  to 
*'  Abraham  than  to  Noah.  In  this  he  feems  to 
"  have  accommodated  himfelf  to  times,  and  to  the 
"  ftate  of  population  amongfl;  the  inhabitants  of 
"  the  earth.  This  is  a  gradation  of  paternal  love. 
"  But  thefe  are  depths  too  great  for  our  weak  facul- 
"  ties  to  fathom  !  I  fhall  therefore  confine  myfelf 
"  within  the  bounds  of  my  fubjeift.** 

You  would  have  done  well,  fir,  to  confine  your- 
felf  to  it.  It  was  an  interelling  fubjecl,  worthy  of 
the  whole  attention  of  your  readers.  Why  would 
you  make  them  lofe  fight  of  it  by  reflexions  that  have 
no  relation  to  it  ? 

C.ertainly,  fir,  you  do  not  exped  from  us  that  we 
fhould  undertake  to  prove  that  a  new  law  has  been 
fubflitutcd  in  place  of  the  Mofaick.  This  is  not  one 
of  the  tenets  of  our  faith.     We  are  highly  pleafed  to 


C     E    R    T    A    I    N       J    E    W    S.  147 

find  fuch  a  learned  chriflian  as  you  forming  doubts 
concerning  this  fubditution.  We  think  it  fufficient 
to  fay  a  few  words  of  the  aftonilhment  you  exprefs, 
that  Mofes  received  more  commands  from  Gcd  than  Ar 
b'raham,  and  Abraham  more  than  Noah. 

Your  furprize,  fir,  aril'cs  from  your  not  attending 
to  this  point,  that  the  circumflances  in  which  Abra- 
ham found  himfelf  were  very  different  from  thofe 
of  Noah ;  and  that  the  fituation  of  Mofes  differed 
from  that  of  Abraham.  Noah  and  his  family,  the 
only  pcrfons  faved  after  the  flood,  were  in  no  need  of 
particular  rites  to  diflinguifh  them  from  other  men 
who  no  longer  exifted.  And  Mofes  who  had  the 
government  of  an  immenfe  people  on  hi;:-hands,  not 
like  Abraham,  the  management  of  a  fmgle  family, 
necefiarilv  v/anted  more  laws.  Is  it  therefore  fo  hard, 
to  conceive  that  new  circunftances  mult  have  requir- 
ed new  lav/8.  and  new  wcnts  called  for  new  helps  ? 
Was  it  neceiTr.ry  that  God,  in  order  io  appear  to  you 
to  ad  reafonably,  fhould  give  a  rite  to  Noah  which 
w^s  the  token  of  hiS  alliance  with  x^ibraham?  Or, 
that  he  iliould  give  to  Abraham  thofe  laws  which 
were  intended  for  the  government  of  a  nation  which 
did  not  then  exifl  ?  If  thefe  are  the  depths  lahich  your 
vjeak  faculties  cannot  fathom^  they  are  'weak  indeed  ! 

Perhaps  you  hold,  that  God  caiaiot  command, 
or  that  when  he  docs,  he  cannot  accommodate  him- 
felf to  the  particular  times  and  wants  of  his  creatures. 
That  when  he  declares  his  will,  he  muft  do  it  with- 
out referve.  That  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  keep  in 
{tore,  for  future  circumftances,  hopes  hereafter  to  be 
given,  and  commands  hereafter  to  be  promulged. 
And  that  he  cannot  enjoin  or  forbid  things  which, 
although  in  themfelves  indiftercnt,  might  become 
ufeful  or  hurtful  according  to  circumftances,  Thefe 
affertions,  which  contradict  the  general  belief  of  man- 
kind, ought  to  be  proved-  before  they  are  credited, 
and  jcits  are  not  proofs. 

Endeavour,   fir,    to  produce  fome   proofs  :    We 
pledge  ourfclvcs  to  anfwer  them,  but  we  give  you 


148  Letters     of 

this  fair  notice,  repeat  not  thofe  of  Tindal.  The  emp- 
ty reafonings  of  that  deift,  which  were  at  firft  difplay- 
cd  with  fo  much  confidence,  have  been  completely 
anfweredby  his  learned  countrymen,  Fofter,  Leland, 
Conybeare,  &:c.  &:c.  Something  more  folid  mud 
hereafter  be  produced. 

§  2.  ¥alje  idea  ivh'ich  the  learned  critic  would  ^i've 
•us  of  the  divine  laiv  among  the  yews. 

*'  But,  you  fay,  if  God,  after  having  given   laws 
*'   can  add  new  ones  to  them,  furely  he  can  add  none 
*'  but  fuch  as  are  worthv  of  him.  Now  is  that  which 
"  is  called  the   divine  law  of  the   Jews   worthy  of 
*'  God  ?  Is  it  worthy  of  a  divine  legiflator  ?" 

This  might  be  doubted,  if  we  were  to  judge  of  it 
accordini^  to  the  idea  you  form  to  yourfelf  of  it,  or 
rather  according  to  the  idea  which  you  would  im- 
pofe  on  your  readers.     But  is  this  idea  juft  ? 

"  By  the  divine  law  I  underftand,  you  fay,  thofe 
*'  laws  which  have  been  given  by  God  himfelf.  He 
*'  ordained  that  the  Jews  Ihould  eat  a  lamb  drefied 
with  lettuce,  and  (landing  with  a  ftaif  in  their 
hands  in  remembrance  of  the  paifover.  That  the 
confecrationof  thehigh-priefl  fnould  be  performed 
by  touching  the  tip  of  his  right  ear,  his  right  hand, 
and  his  right  foot  with  blood.  Thefe  are  to  us 
extraordinary  cuftoms,  but  not  fo  to  antiquity. 
He  alfo  forbad  eating  all  fifh  without  fcales,  fwine, 
hare,  hedge-hog,  griffins,  ixions,  &c. 
"  He  alfo  inftituted  their  feafts  and  ceremonies. 
"  All  thofe  things  which  feemed  arbitrary  to  other 
nations,  and  fubje<^  to  pefitive  law  and  cuftom, 
when  commanded  by  God  himfelf,  became  to  the 
Jews  a  divine  law,   (1)  juit  as  whatever    Jefus 


<e 
<c 
ic 
cc 


(1)  To  the  Jeivs  a  di-viue  law-  Mr.  Valtaire  feems  to  make  an  oppofition 
between  the  divine  and  the  pofitive  law-  This  is  a  miftake.  The  divine 
law  of  the  Jews  is  diPinguifhcd  into  divine  natural  law,  which  comprehend* 
the  moral  laws,  founded  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  into  divine  pofitive  law 
which  coniprchcnds  the  ceremonial  laws,  the  laws  of  civil  polity,  &c.  v\hich 
arefoundcd  merely  on  the  psod  will  and  plcafure  of  God.  He  feemsa'fo, 
a«  well  as  Tindal,  to  c«nfoiind  pofitive  with  arbitrary  laws,  and  to  undci- 
ftansi.as  he  does,  by  arbitrary  laws,  laws  of  mere  caprice,  and  which  have  no 
Qiotivc  nor  rcalunuble  objed.     In^thii  cafe  both  he  and  Tiiida!  are  miilaken. 


•   E  R  T  A  1  N     Jew  S.  1^^ 


Ghriri:,  the  fon  of  Mary  and  the  Son  of  God,  l5.?.s 

commanded,  is  to  us  a  divine  law  !" 

Thus,  fir,    you  defcribe    our   divine   hiw.     Thii? 
whole  kgiflation,   the  objeQ  of  refpeci:  for  fu  many 
ages,  is  nothing,  according  to  you,  but  an  heap  of, 
vain  obfervances  and   fuperJlitious  cudoms.      Sudi 
is   the  picture  you  ^ive  of  them,  fnnilar  in  this  re-. 
i^^iect  to  the   work  of  thofe  ill-natured  painters  who 
employ  the  art  of  profile  with  no  other  viev/  than  ro 
reprefent  the  obje6t  they  hate  on  the  mofi  unfavour- 
zbfe  fide. 

But  -are  tTiefe  ritual  laws,  which  vou  quote,  only 
the  divine  law  of  the  Jews  ?  Axz  they  the  principal 
and  mod  elfential  parts  of  it?   Our  prophets  every 
where  fay  the  contrary.     The  decalogue,  that  molt 
excellent   compendium   of  morality,    and    fo  many 
O-ther  admirable  precepts  on  the  duties  of  man    to- 
wards God,  towards  himfeli",  and  towards  his  fellow- 
creatures,  are  the  foundation  and  firll:  part  of   this 
law  ;   and  whatever  wife  rules  are  given  for  external 
worlhip,  and  for  every  thing  that  concerns  it,  on  the 
authority  of  magilfrates,  on  inheritances  and   fuits, 
trials,  on  the  manner  of  making  peace  or   war,  hz. 
In  a  word,   on  the  whole  adminiftrafion,  ccclefialli- 
cal,  civil,  and  political,   thefe  are  the  fccond   part. 
You  prefent  us  wi.th  an  inadequate  and  falfe  idea  of 
our  divine  law,  when  you  confme  it  to  rites  and  ce- 
remonies, jufl  as  if  you  faid  that  to  dip  in  v/ater,  or 
to  filed  water  on  the  head  was  the  divine  law  of  Chrif- 
tians  ;  or,  as  if  in  order  to  point  out  Mr.  Voltaire, 
.we  were  to  fay  the'  author  of  Zulima  or   Olvmpia, 
not  the  author  of  the  Henriade  or  of  Zara.     If  we 
rifted  in  this  manner,  fir,  would  our  proceeding  look 
impartial?   And  would  you  not  iind  in  it  more  ma- 
lice than  candour? 


PoHtivelaws  arc  thofc  whic'h  proTiTMt  or  command  tiling's  Tn  tTieir  nature 
jijdiffjrcnt  ;  but  things  in  themfelvrs  indifferent,  may  be  commanded  or  pro- 
hibited in  certain  circumftances,  for  wife  vitws,   and  rcafouublc  niotivcs. 


u 


150  Letters     or 

§  3 .  Vain  efforts  of  the  criiick  to  render  the  ritual 
laws  of  the  yeivs  r'idiculou>.  The  eating  of  the  pafchal 
lamb.      The  confecration  of  the  high-priefi. 

You  are  not  fatisfied  with  giving  a  falfe  idea  of 
our  divine  laws,  you  endeavour  to  ridicule  them. 

Our  rites  feem  to  you  extraordinary  cuftoms.  Are 
youthen  one  of  thofe  fimple  people  who,  never  hav- 
ing gone  from  home,  think  all  foreign  cuftoms  odd  ? 
Or  who,  confined  within  the  narrow  circle  of  their 
own  time,  deem  nothing  reafonable  but  what  is  like 
the  prefent  things  ?  The  cuftom  of  eating  the  pafchal 
lamb,  (landing,  with  a  flick  in  the  hand,  appears 
flrange  to  you  ;  but  could  there  be  any  thing  better 
adapted  to  recal  to  the  minds  of  the  Hebrews  their 
departure  out  of  Egypt,  and  the  wonders  which  (i) 
accompanied  it  ? 

And  what  matters  it,  I  pray  you,  whether  an 
high  pried  is  confecrated  hy  putting  blood  on  his  right 
ear,  or  by  pouring  oil  on  his  hands?  AH  rites  are 
effentialiy  equal.  It  is  the  fantlity  of  religion  which 
imprints  an  auguft  charafter  on  them.  To  be  offend- 
ed at  thefe  cuftoms  of  an  ancient  people,  to  find  thefe 
ufages extraordinary, is  to  imitate  a  child  whoisfright- 
encd,or  a  coxcomb  who  gives  a  fmile  of  contempt 
at  a  foxeign  drefs ! 

§  4.  Aniina's  forbidden  to  the  Jews.  Reafons  for 
ihefe  prohibitions. 

"  God,  you  fay  jeflingly,  forbad  eating  fiflies 
•'  without  fcales,  fwine,  hares,  hedge-hogs,  owls, 
«  &c. 

Well,  Sir,  what  is  there  ridiculous  in  this,  that 
unwholefome  food  fliould  have  been  prohibited  by 
wife  laws,  and  that  other  kinds  of  it,  which  might 
appear  pleafmg  to  certain  nations,  fliould  have  been 


(i)  Which  accompanist!  it.  This  rite,  peculiar  to  the  Jewifli  nation,  the  in- 
ftitutioii  of  which  went  a>  far  back  as  the  time  of  their  departure,  Is  an  in- 
contefVibk  proof  of  thoie  fa  ;rs  of  which  it  recals  the  memory.  'Ihis  cuf- 
tom thca  was  wil'ely  appointed  by  the  Icgiflator.  Aut, 


Certain     J  e  w  Si  151 

forbidden  for  particular  reafons,  which,  when  decla- 
red, muit  appear  falisfaQory  ? 

The  law  forbad  us  to  eat  hedge-hogs^  oivh^  birds  of 
prey  ;  add  to  this,  various  kinds  of  lociijh^  rats^  li- 
zards ^f  er  penis  ^  idfe.  iye.  You  are  amazed  at  the  prohi- 
bitions, fir,  but  your  amazement  would  ccafe  if  you 
would  recollect  that  it  was  ufual  then  as  well  as  now, 
(i)  to  feed  on  certain  kinds  of  locuds  in  that  coun- 
try? but  that  in  the  time  of  our  forefathers  fome  fa- 
vage  nations  did  eat  every  kind  of  thefe  without  di- 
(linftion  ;  that  even  thofe  animals  that  live  on  carri- 
on, (2)  lizards,  field-mice,  were  ufed  by  them  for 
food.  That  not  only  the  Pfyllas,  but  other  Arabi- 
ans did  eat,  and  ftill  do  eat  (3)  ferpents  and  vipers, 
and  that  even  in  fome  very  polifhed  parts  of  Europe, 
are  the  raven  and  thefnake-difiies  (4)  not  totally  unul- 
ed.  What,  fir,  do  you  blame  our  legillator  for  having 
forbidden  his  people  to  ufe  this  vile  and  dangerous 
food,  and  for  having  pointed  out  to  them  more  con- 
venient and  wholefome  nourilhment  ! 

§    5.  Of  Ixicrs  and  Griffins. 

i^mong  the  birds  of  prey  that  are  forbidden,  you 
mention  [xions  and  Griffins.     Is  this  done  in  order  to 


(r)  To  feed  on  certain  iinih  sf  locufls.  I.ocufts  could  fcarcely  ferve  for  food 
in  Europe,  they  are  too  fniall  antt  too  poor.  Thofe  cf  the  eaft,  being 
larger,  can  give  better  nourilhrnent.  In  P.ilefliiis,  Arabia,  and  the  nei'^h- 
bouring  countries,  various  kinds  of  them  are  now  eaten.  They  fait  and 
jjreferve  them.  They  are  fcrved  r.])  fried,  or  in  ragout.  Dr.  Shaw  rc'atea 
in  hit  v<.yo^'_es,  tiiat  he  eat  fome  of  them  fried  in  Barbary,  and  that  they  tatt- 
ed much  like  !obftcrs.  In  i693,flioals  of  them  appeared  in  Germany,  which 
did  much  hurt  in  many  places.  i\  certain  Jew  ttld  the  celebrated  1-udoiph 
that  thefe  latter  wire  like  thofe  of  Judea.  Tlils  li^arncd  m^n  ventured  to 
cat  of  them  with  his  whole  family,  and  found  the  fame  talle  in  thc.ni  tiiat 
Shaw  did. 

Lociifts  were  in  ancient  times  an  approved  food,  and  commonly  ufed  Vj 
the  Ethiopians,  the  l.ybian*,  the  Parthians,  and  the  other  nations  of  the 
eall  which  furrounded  tf»e  Jews.  The  tt  llimonie';  of  Dii'dortis  .Sicti'.u»,  Ari- 
fiotle,  Pliny,  &c.  leave  no  room  for  doubt  John  the  Baptift  lived  on 
them  in  the  wilderncfs.     Sec  Chai.s,  ^^^c.     EMt. 

(a)  Li-z(ttdi,  JiiUm'iccc.  Thefe  animals  are  {till  ufed  for  food  in  ^'^rabia. 
Sec  the  vo/a^-es  of  Haire!q[uift,  Shaw,  &c.     Ant. 

(3)  Serpents   and-vibrs.   See  the  v  •y3;:ts  of  HafTelquift.   jiui. 

(4)  yut'.ot.i'.ly  uniifid.  It  i»  laid  that  the)  arc  ufcd  foi  fuou  in  fome  pro- 
viiicci  ul  i  ranee.     Aut, 


)fyi  Letters     o  ? 

confound  the  (i)  heron  and  the  lapwing  with  tJk>^* 
imaginary  aniraals,  which  never  exided  but  in  th-i 
lieads  of  poets  and  painters  ?  This  is  ind-eed  an  hap- 
py expedient  i'o?  throwing  our  divine  lav/  Into  ridi- 
cule! However  we  doubt  of  ks  fuecefs  with  learned 
readers.  They  well  know  the  value  of  thofe  pieces 
of  raillery,  which  are  founded  merely  on  the  ob- 
icurity  of  terms,  and  the  ignorance  of  ancient  cuf- 
toms, 

§    6.  Olher  ariiinals  forbidden. 

If  OUT  fathers  were  ordered"  not  to  eat  fifh  without 
fcales,  we  do  not  rhink  they  had  any  reafon  to  re- 
gret it.  It  is  well  known,  that  in  the  eaft  efpecially, 
this  kind  of  ti fn  is  nei-ther  clean  nor  wholefome;  that 
they  always  lie  in  heated  mud,  and  that  they  are  flab- 
by, vifcoiis,  and  (2)  hard  of  digeltion. 

You  do  not  approve  the  prohibition  of  the  hare 
neither.  Perhaps  you  are  fond  o-f  it,  others  are  not 
fov  We  mud  nor  difpute  about  tafles.  But  do  you- 
not  know  thatfome  meats  may  be  molt  excellent  aad 
defirable  in  one  country,  and  not  fain  anorhcr  ?  How 
can  you  tell  whether,  in  hot  countries  the  hare  has 
that  pkafmg  llavour  which  you  admire?  The  lleHi  cf 
it,  which  there  mud:  be  more  black  and  coarfe,  might 
not  have  been  agreeable  to  the  inhabitants  ofPaleftinc 
and  their  neighbours.  V/e  have  the  more  reafon  to 
believe  this,  becaufe  to  this  day  the'  Egyptians  and 
Arabians  do  not  eiteem  it  at  all,as(3)Hairelqui[t  telk 
us.  Thev  leave  thofe  animals  favs  this  learned  tra- 
vellcr,  in  perfei^l  peace,  which  are  fo  much  harrafleJ 

(1)  'fie  heron  aiul  the  laptving  If  is  very  cirar  that  KTofc-s  Jots  net  fpi-;ii: 
fiere  of  imaginary  lieiiiL'S.  hut  (;f  birds  of  prey  well  known  in  his  time.  Yet 
it  wonliT  be  hard  to  tell  cxailiy  wliat  kinds  of  birds  oTprcy  art  D)ear>t  by  the 
Kthrew  words  vhlch  we  read  in  Leviticus.  The  fame  may  l>e  laid  of  a 
^re.it  nunibtr  oi"  the  c^uadrupcus  and  rej)d!cs  which  are  mcntiuni'd  in  this 
chapter.     El-f 

(2)  H.n :  of  dhef.'on.  Some  ancient  writers  affure  us  that  the  Etjyptiann 
•ea:  no  fifli'  without  iVales ;  and  Grotius  obfcrves  that  Numa  had  forbid  then: 
to  be  uftd  ill  the  re.(,)a(>s  which  were  given  in  Iionour  of  the  gods.  Sec  tlie 
Dotcs  of  this  learned  man  on  Leviticus.     Edit. 

(,3)     As  l-L'jfitipiin  lei'Is  us.     .*iee  hi?  vc.yaircs      It  has  been  obfcrvcd  alfir 
tPiar  th«  ancient  Br-tois  did  not  eat  hare,    Lfforem  gufarefas  non  f>>'hint,    fiy* 
C-x-^w  de  BflloGjlUco,  ti'j    5      Tills  is  the  learned   ■;pcnctf's  obltrva:iou  in- 
his  u'cdtiXc  uf  the  ilicuul  hws  ui  ihc  Ikbrcws.    Au^ 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N"      J    I    W"   S.  f5_J 

m  the  reft  of  the  world.  The  legifiator  therefore 
only  prohibited  a  kind  of  food  which  was  in  no  cl- 
teem.     Is  there  any  room  for  aftonifhraent  in  this  ? 

Perhaps  too  you  find  fwine's  iltih  good  and  whole- 
fome  /  but  many,  even  among  Chriftians,  think  o- 
therwife,  and  look  upon  it  as  food  hard  of  digefiion. 
This  is  not  all  ;  this  animal  is  fubject  to  a  contagious 
diltemper  which  was  formerly  very  common  in  Palef- 
tine,  and  the  neighbourhood.  For  this  very  reafoa 
your  anceftors,  having  brought  the  leprofy  back  with 
them  in  their  expeditions  to  the  Holy  Land,  forbard 
fwine's  flelh  to  be  fold  in  the  markets,  except  the 
bead:  hadl^een  infpededby  otHcers  (i)  called  ^at/^t/j', 
who  were  appointed  for  this  purpofe.  Laftly,  even 
the  fihhinefs  of  this  quadruped  was  fufficient  to  give 
a  diitafte  for  it.  And  agreeably  to  this  the  Egyptians', 
Arabians, almofl:  all'  nations,  from  Ethiopia  to  India(2) 
abhorred  it.  How  much  more  mull  a  people  have  de- 
teded  it,  to  whomf  the  law  recommends  fo  ftrongly 
cleanlinef;^  and  purity,  even  in  externals.  In  ihort, 
fwine's  Helli  is  hard  of  digeflron,  it  i-s  fubject  to  the 
kprofy  ;  fwrne  is  the  moft  filthy  of  aniniafs.  Thefe 
three  things,  are,  we  think,  caufes  futiicient  for  ba- 
niihing  (3)  it  from  our  tables. 

(1)  Cjflr:/  experts.  It  is  faid  that  thnte  exf^ertr,  whdfe  ofTccs  flilT  exift,  wers 
ap}iointt;d  undtr  the  title  of  counfeilors  cf  iLc  ting,  i-.ffuSlors  of  fii-im's  tonguej^ 
For  it  is  the  tongues  of  thtfe  animals  which  irc  to  be  infptdlcd.  When  ul- 
eer*  or  whirc  bliders  appear  on  it,  they  JH<lge  tiiem  to  bo  leprous,  and  ths 
ptofile  are  forhid  to  cxpoie  them  to  falc.  See  te  'fraili-  Je  la  Foliu,pHT  U  C'tm^ 
niijjuht  Lamare.      Aut. 

(2)  Abhorred  it.  The  averfioH  of  the  Epypfians  for  fwrnc  went  Co  far,  aa 
tlcrodctiis  relates,  that  if  a  man  had  ttinch-djvven  by  chance,  one  of  thofc 
animals,  he  wvnt  dirediy  and  plunged  into  the  Nile  without  nndrcffing.  The 
grcateft  p:irt  of  thofe  nations,  Etiyptians,  Arabians,  Indians,  Oiil  priTervc 
the  fame  abhorrence.  Mahomet  did  not  fcrbid,iii  very  ftroti^  terms,  fifvlzjc's 
flclh,  and  yet  the  r.Iahomctans  every  where  dcteft  it.     Sec  Chais.     Aut. 

(3)  For  iaii^Jhiiigit  from  our  UiUis.  In  Arabia,  Ac  fays  IVIr.  dd  Bonlain- 
*illitr>,  the  faltncis  of  water  and  food,  c:iufes  the  inhabitants  to  be  mucK 
given  t  eruptions  Therefore  the  law  wiiich  forbad  eati.ii;;  fwis'/sflcfh  was 
a  j;ood  law  for  thefe  nations  San<flor:us  has  ohfervcd  that  fwine's  flifh 
which  is  eaten,  perlpires  but  little,  and  that  this  lood  btfuits  ]<rcvtnt*  the 
perfpir-jtHuH  of  other  nlinicnts.  He  has  found  tiic  dinmiutlon  to  amount  tu 
one  third.  It  is  well  known  ton  that  the  want  o)  prrfpir-t^on  creates  or  in>- 
flames  rutaneou?  dillempers.  Therefore  fwine'i.  ficlh  onuht  to  be  prohibited 
JB  »holc  cliniiUs,  that  arc  fubj-dl  to  thefe  diUonj^itrs,  iuih.  at  P-kUinc,  Artr 


154  Lettersof 

§  7.  Two  other  mot  I've  s  for  the  prohibition  of  all 
ihefe  animals. 

The  heavinefs  or  lightnefs,  the  danger  or  falubri- 
ty  of  certain  foods,  were,  no  doubt,  fufficient  mo- 
tives to  a  wife  legiHator,  for  prohibiting  or  permitting 
them  ;  but  Mofes  had  ftill  more  important  reai'bns 
for  doing  it,  and  which  had  a  c^ofer  connexion  with 
the  end  which  he  propofed  to  hinifelf,  in  the  eftabliili- 
ment  of  his  legiilation. 

Mod  nations,  at  that  time,  ufed  or  abdained  from 
certain  ahments,  rather  from  religious  prejudices  and 
vain  fuperftition,  than  from  barbarifm  and  rudenefs 
of  manners.  Thus  the  Syrians,  or  at  leaft  their 
priefls,  (i)  never  eat  filTi.  The  Egyptians  neither 
fiih  nor  birds  of  prey,  nor  any  of  thofe  quadrupeds 
which  divided  not  the  hoof,  and  the  Phenicians  nei- 
ther (2)  pigeons  nor  doves.  The  ancient  Zaiuans, 
abllained  hkewife  from  various  animals,  becaufethev 
thought  them  particularly  confecrated  to  the  feveral 
heavenly  bodies  which  they  worfliipped,  and  becaufe 
they  made  ufe  of  them  in  their  (3)  divinations.  Mo- 
fes  meant  to  prevent  thefe  abufes  when  he  eftab- 
liflied  the  diftinction  of  food  upon  diiierent  princi- 
ples. 

The  fecond  motive  for  thefe  prohibitions  v/as  to 
diftinguifh  and  to  feparate  by  them  the  Hebrews 
from  all  other  nations,  to  imprint  continually  011 
their  minds,  by  this  diftinction,  their  particular  coh- 
fecration  unto  the  Lord,  and,  forgive  us  this  piece  of 
vanity,  for  it  is  well  founded,  their  fuperiority,  at 
leall  in  point  of  worfliip,  over  all  other  nations  of  that 

Tiia,  Egypt,  and  Lyhia,  &c.  This  is  the  obfervation  of  P.Tr.  de  Montcfqiiieu, 
Spirit  of  Laws,   Vol.  a.  Atil. 

Mr.  de  Voltaire  fays  himfclf,  that  Palelline  is  a  leprous  country,  in  which 
fwiiic's  ficfh  is  almoll  poifon.  Can  he  think  if  extraordinary  that  we  fhouid 
be  forbidden  to  ufe  it  ?  Dift    Philof-  Article,  Montefq    E.!it. 

(l  Never  eat fjb.  Some  of  tliofe  nations  worfliinped  their  Gods  under 
this  form.     ^ut. 

(2)  Nur  Doves.  They  thought  their  goddefs  had  appeared  under  the  form 
of  a  dove.     Aut. 

(3)  Di-vlnatio'is.  With  a  view  to  thofe  fuperllitions  of  Paeans,  in  diO'n- 
guilbinj;  meats,  one  of  the  C'hriftian  ajiofllcs  ca!U  this  diHinclio:),  a  tkiiiim 
•/'  Jivili.     £Mt, 


CERTAIN      Jews.  15^ 

time.  This  motive  is  certain,  being  clearly  cxprcfT- 
ecl  in  the  law  :  ( 1 )  And  ye  JJ^all  be  holy  unto  ;;/<f,  for 
I  the  Lord-,  am  holy,  and  have  fevered  you  from  ether 
people,  that  ye  jhould  be  mine.  Te  f:>ail  therefore  put 
difference  between  clean  beajis  and  unclean,  and  between 
unclean  fowls  and  clean.  And  ye  fhall  be  holy  men  un- 
to me,  neither  jh all  ye  eat  any  fiejh  that  is  torn  of  bea^s 
in  the  field.  Te  JJmll  cafl  it  to  the  dogs.  As  if  he 
had  faid  to  them,  according  to  the  obfervation  of  a 
(2)  learned  commencator,  "  You  are  a  chofen  peo- 
"  pie,  wholly  confecraterf  to  my  glory,  ufe  no  food 

but  what  is  fuitable  to  your  dignity.     Know  your- 

felves,  and  make  all  nations  know  by  the  purity 

and  innocence  of  your  food,  that  you  belong  to  an. 

holy  and  pure  God." 

We  think,  fir,  that  there  is  nothing  in  thefe  mo- 
tives that  can  degrade  our  nation,  or  derogate  from 
the  divine  prudence  of  its  legiflator. 

§  8.  Of  fnie  other  ritual  laws,  and  the  motives  of 
them. 

Even,  if  after  fo  many  ages,  the  motives  of  all  our 
ritual  laws  were  unknown,  yet  the  admirable  wifdoni 
of  our  legiflator,  exemplified  in  fo  many  inftances, 
would  give  us  good  grounds  to  fuppofe  that  he  had 
very  ftrong  reafons  for  appointing  them,  reafons 
worthy  of  himfelf,  and  of  the  fpirit  of  God  which  di- 
rected him. 

But  we  are  not  reduced  to  this,  with  refpecl  to 
the  greated  part  of  our  laws.  Many  learned  jews 
and  Chrillians  have  fhewn  the  end  and  ufe  of  them, 
with  regard  to  the  times  and  places  in  which  our 
fathers  lived.  Some  of  them  were  condefcenfions 
which  the  Lord  deigned  to  fliew  towards  a  people, 
who  had  been  long  habituated  to  the  cudoms  of 
Egypt.  Hence  the  majeftick  apparatus  of  the  taber- 
nacle, that  multitude  of  facriiices,  thofe  pompous 

VI- :  •'♦ 
fl)  AnJ yeJbaU  Leboly.     See  I.eviticus  ch-  20.  and  Exodus  22. 

(a)  A  learned commentaUr.  ]Vir.  Chais.  This  learned  clergyman  has  com- 
prized in  his  conimcnt,  the  bed  thinjjs  the  Enj,'lifh  writers  have  faid  on  the 
Fciitaicuth.     Wc  have  nude  great  ufe  of  his  comment  ia  this  letter.  Aut. 


t;5  XiET'TERS        OF 

■ceremonies  to  which  the  patriarchs  were  flrangcT?!, 
and  which  formed  part  of  our  worfliip.  Others 
were  intended  to  give  the  Hebrews  an  infurmounta- 
ble  averfion,  for  the  barbarous  rites,  and  abominable 
fuperflitions  of  their  neighbours.  Hence  thofe  pro- 
hibitions, agalnfl  making  their  children  (i)  pafi 
through  the  lire,  againlt  (2)  fligmatizing  themfelves, 
(3)again{l  fladiing  their  bodies  with  knives,  or  cut- 
ting their  hair  (4)  in  a  certain  form,  againft  (5)  eat- 
ing near  blood,  againft  worfliipping  in  the  high 
places,  or  (6)  planting  graves  near  the  tabernacle, 
he,  ^ 

Thefe  laws  wer-e  intended  to  fix  lafting  traces  oa 
their  minds,  of  the  wonders  which  God  had  worked 
for  them,  to  perpetuate  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, the  memory  of  thefe  great  events,  and  to  evi- 
dence the  truth  of  them  to  the  whole  earth,  even 
4own  to  our  times.     And  this  was  the  chief  motive 

(r)  Pafs  throvgh  the  fire.  1^114  waSTTO  praAice  of  the  WOrfhippCM  of  Mo- 
locki.  They  puffed  thro'  the  fire  alfo,  in  honour  of  T^poilo,  ^Vpo.lo,  fayi 
^.runs,  in  t)<e  lincid,  ' 

!^itcm  frimi  calimus^cu'i p'meus  arSor  aeervo  , 

JPujcitur  15'  tried  utn^freti  pictate,  ftr  Igncm 
Gulloret  multi  prenumus  ^ejligia  pruna.      £Jii- 

fi)  Not  to  fltgmsiizc  themfehei.  It  was  the  cuftom  of  certain  idohterstf 
Imprint  on  ihcir  ikin  various  figures  and  charadlsrs  in  honour  of  their  goJs. 

(3)  Not  to f.'fi  the'tr  loSiei  ivii'j  Imvet-  The  priefls  of  Cybele  ufed  to  muti- 
Jatc  thcnifcivcs  ;  thofc  of  Baal,  Bcllona,  Ills,  &c.  out  themfelves  with  knivss. 
At  funerals,  whether  to  appcafe  the  infernal  pods,  or  to  do  honour  to  the 
<!-cad,hy  expre^iing  ftrong  grief,  the  women  efpecially,  tore  themfelves  and 
cut  the  (kin  of  their  arms  and  breads.  Th<jfe  mad  expreliions  of  grief  were 
lorbiolden  at  >ithens  and  Rome  by  exprefs  laws.  MuUcies  ^cnas  ne  radunto, 
iays  uhc  law  of  the  twelve  tables.     EMi. 

(4)  In  a  certiiin  form.  L  e.  in  r.  round  form,  this  was  another  fuperftitiou* 
cudoin  of  fome  nations  near  Palefline.    Aut- 

{')  Kenr  bleoJ.  Maimonidcs  tells  us  that  the  ancient  Zabians,  eat  th« 
flelli  of  vidims  near  thofe  pits,  where  they  received  their  Wood,  in  order  to 
tniploy  it  in  fonie  magical  operations.     Sec  his  treatife  called  Alore  Ncvochim 

Jiut. 

(6)  0-r  to  plant  groves^  isfc  The  ;~»ean  temples  were  commonly  fituated  on 
hijrh  places,  and  furroundcd  with  groves,  which  occafiotied  many  fupcrfti- 
tionsand  irrrgularitiee,  which  the  lepiflator  meant  to  prevent  by  thefe  pro  • 
Jiiliitioiis.  For  this  reafun  many  of  our  pious  kings  are  cfrffured  in  the  fcrip- 
ture,  for  not  haviUj;  dedroyed  the  hi^h  places  and  the  arot-esi,  Although  thele 
high  p  aces  were  conl'tcrated  to  the  Lord,  yet  the  Ifraelites  often  gave  tl-.cm- 
ftlvesup  in  them  ti)  the  fu;:>cr[litions  and  irregularities  which  attended  idoi- 
titjrpus  worihip.     £dit. 


•C    *E    R    T    A    I    N         J    E    V/    S.  I57 

for  inflltuting  the  redemption  of  the  firft  born,  the 
oiFering  of  the  firft  fruits,  and  of  moil  of  our  fefli- 
valsj  &c.  &c.  Thofe  laws,  like  fo  many  emblems 
and  ufeful  parables,  contained,  at  the  bottom,  ad- 
mirable inftrudion.  Thus  the  neceffity  of  fo  many 
precautions  againft  legal  pollutions,  fo  many  wafli- 
ings  and  outward  purifications,  intimated  to  them 
the  ftill  more  binding  obligation  of  purity  of  heart. 

Other  laws  flowed  from  the  (i)  legiflator's  wife 
policy,  who  wanted  to  attach  the  Hebrews  to  the 
land  which  God  had  given  them.  To  make  them 
love  its  produ6ts,  and  to  extirpate  for  ever  from  their 
hearts  any  wilh  to  return  into  Egypt.  Hence  thofe 
laws  which  prefcribed  the  ufe  of  oil  in  their  facri- 
fices,  which  Egypt  does  not  produce,  and  of  wine, 
which  the  (2)  Egyptians  abhorred  ;  hence  the  pro- 
hibition to  eat  the  lamb  or  the  kid  boiled  in  milk,  as 
thofe  nations  did  that  (3)  had  not  oil. 

There  are  fome  laws  befides,  which  feem  to  have 
been  fpecially  intended  to  ferve  for  flanding  palpable 
proofs  of  the  continual  providence  of  God  over  his 
people,  and  of  the  divine  miffion  of  the  legiflator. 
Such,  among  others,  was  the  law,  enading  that  the 
lands  Pnould  reft  during  the  fabbatical  year  ;  a  re- 
markable and  fmgular  law,  and  which  could  fcarcely 
come  into  the  legiflator's  mind  by  natural  m.eans. 
It  mufl:  have  been  founded  on  the  certainty  he  had, 
that  every  fixth  year  would  produce  abundantly 
enough  for  the  three  following.  Without  this  Mo- 
fes  would  have  run  a  rifl^  of  lofing  all  his  people  by 

X 

(l)  The  Ic^'if.utit^s  tvife po'tc^.  The  flc!]gn  of  Mofes  Was  to  keep  tlie  Ifra- 
clites  (hut  iiji  between  Libanus,  ths  Euphrates  and  Egypt.  This  left  them  a 
country  of"  reafoiiablii  extent,  where  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  go  antl 
attack  them.     A  wife,  policy  and  full  of  moderation.     Fillt. 

(a)  The  Er^yptians  ahbtrred.  See  in  rh«;  Memoirs  of  the  Acadeniy  of  Oot- 
tingen,  a  curious  diffcrtation  by  Mr.  de  Michaclis,  called,  de  Ugilus  I'aUJli' 
niim  pop-ulo  Jfiaeliiico  caramfiiil'Uris.      Aut< 

(3)  Hud  not  oil.  Dr.  Pocock  has  difcovered  t';Ta;n  the  CK^lom  of  catlnij 
the  lamb  and  the  kid  boiled  in  water  and  four  milk,  amonij  the  v^rahiai;;), 
whicii  Mofcs  forbids  in  this  law.  We  mud  ohferve  that  the  law  was  con- 
ceived in  thefe  terms.  TIm^k  f,-.i't  rot  eLt  tht-  kid,  or  the  !amh,  in  th<3  milk 
of  his  mother.  This  was  at  once  a  firoke  of  policy,  and  a  IcfTon  of  liumarjj- 
ty.     Ar't. 


158  Letters      of 

famine,  and  or  drawing  upon  his  memory  publick 
curfes.  Now  from  Avhom  could  this  aifuiance  come, 
but  from  God  ?  Can  we  conceive  that  Mofes  would 
have  ventured  to  enact  fuch  a  law,  if  he  had  been  on- 
ly a  common  legillator  ?  But  what  would  have  been 
the  he'j^ht  of  madnefs  in  a  politician,  confined  to 
worldly  views,  is  an  evidence  that  his  commiffion 
was  from  heaven,  and  that  the  God,  whofe  fervant 
he  called  himfelf,  coniinually  (i)  watched  over  If- 
rael. 

Our  ritual  laws  then,  which  you  look  upon  as 
whimfical,  did  not  fpring  from  caprice.  They  were 
(2)  pofitive  laws,  but  yet  founded  in  reafon,  and  had 
each  a  particular  motive,  altho'  the  diflance  of  fo 
many  ages  prevents  us  from  knowing  th.em  all. 
§  9.  General  motive  of  all  the  Ritual  Laws» 
But  to  thefe  particular  motives  a  general  one  mufl 
be  added,  v.?hich  alone  would  be  fufficient  to  jultify 
the  wifdom  of  thefe  extraordinary  inftititious.  They 
all  tended  to  one  common  end,  worthy  of  a  great  le- 
gillator. This  end  of  his  was,  to  enfure  the  duration 
of  his  people,  and  the  purity  of  their  worfliip  againft 
all  the  revolutions  of  time. 

For  this  purpofe,  it  was  neceffary  to  attach  the  He- 
brews very  flrongly  to  their    religion  ; .  and  this    he 
did  mofb  eifeclually  by  the  multitude  of  obfervances 
which  he  h.id.  on  them.     For,  as  the  author  of  the 
Spirit  of  Lav/s  judicioufly  fays,  "  a  religion  which  is 
*'  loaded  wiih  many  rites,  attaches  men  more  frrong- 
"  ly  than  one  that  has  fev/er.     The  things  v/hich  we 
"  arc  continually  doing,  become   very  dear  to   us. 
'•'^   Hence,  he   obferve;.',  the  tenacious   ohftlnacj  of  the 
"  y<?i^'.r."     This  is  a  conilderation   truly  phiiofophi- 
ca),  which  Mofes  had  before  him,  and  we  are  much 
farprized  that  a  n)a?i  of  your  fagaeity  did  not  catch  it. 
In  order  to  attain  mere  certainly  to  this  crtd,  it  was 
neceffary  befides,  to  keep  all  the  individuals  of  the 

f  I )    'fVaUlnd  tvi.r  I/rac!.     Tliii  i>  an  obfci  valitn  of  I.elsnd  agair.fi  TinJal- 
."t't. ' 

(z)  Sec  above,  §  I.  Aut, 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i^g 

nation  clofely  united  together,  and  feparate  from  eve- 
ry other.  Now  what  could  more  effedually  do  this, 
than  thofe  extraordinary  obfervances  and  various 
rites,  which  diiTered  from  thofe  of  other  nations,  or 
were  diametrically  oppofite  to  their  cuftoms  ?  Even 
in  the  opinion  of  heathens  this  was  a  mark  of  diflinc- 
tion  between  them  and  us,  and  a  barrier  which  (i) 
divided  us  from  them  at  all  times. 

Yes,  fir,  if  the  perfeverance  of  the  Jewifli  nation 
in  the  fame  worfliip,  if  their  exiflence  after  fo  many 
revolutions  and  catadrophes,  can  be  accounted  for  by 
human  reafon,  to  thefe  ixiftitutions  they  are  due. 
By  the  obfervance  of  thefe  rites  the  Hebrews  have 
formed,  do  form,  and  will  form,  until  the  accom- 
plilhment  of  the  prophecies,  a  nation  ap?rt,  and  by 
this,  in  fpite  of  their  caplivides,  difperfions,  and  mi- 
feries,  they  triumph  over  time,  whiift  the  moft  pow- 
erful and  wifelt  nations  have  difappeared  otf  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

Such  is  the  end  and  general  utility  of  thofe  rites 
which  you  condemn  fo  rafhly.  Are  ihefe  ridiculous 
views,  abfurd  policy  and  v/eak  projecls  ?  The  JewiHi 
legiflator  was  better  acquainted  with  the  heart  of  man 
than  you  fir,  and  with  the  neceiTity  which  all  religi- 
ous and  civil  focieties  are  in  of  external  bonds  of  uni- 
on. To  fpeak  of  him  merely  as  a  man,  and  to  judge 
of  you  by  your  criticifms,  although  we  ihould  allow 
you  to  be  a  great  philofopher,  and  a  perion  of  fine 
talle,  you  would  have  been  in  his  place  a  weak  politi- 
cian, and  a  very  poor  legiflator.     Your  nation,  your 

(l)  Divided  us^  from  them  at  all  limits.  Ancient  lagiflators,  efpecial'y  tFie 
r.gyptians,  looked  upon  the  too  free  communication  of  their  people  with 
firangers,  a»  one  of  the  principal  cnufss  of  the  corruption  of  th«ir  ni'»rals,  and 
of  their  (lifregard  of  the  cuftoms  and  law*  of  their  own  country.  Particular 
rites,  abdinence  from  certain  mea's,  (Sec.  mi;:ht  prevent  t'^is  communication. 
I  Hie  not  la  live  luil/j  your  Egvfitians,  fays  a  ibldier  in  a  Greek  conick  writer,  / 
lave /tori,  and  tbejc  people  eat  twr.c.  Perhaps  Mofcs  borrowed  this  piece  of  poli- 
cy fron\  them,  of  v/hich  he  made  a  better  ufe  than  they  did,  and  which  he 
turned  to  better  advantage.  It  fucceeded  witli  him  The  feparationfiom  Jlr an- 
gers, fays  the  author  of  the  Spirit  of  Lawi,  h  the  prcfervatiin  of  m')r.ils.  It 
feem?  as  if  this  illuftrious  writer  had  r^-iledcd  much  more;  on  legiflation,  thaji 
Mr.  Volt*ire.     Ldit. 


i6©  Lettersof 

religion,  and  your  laws,  would  long  ago  have  (i) 
come  to  an  end. 

(l)  Come  to  an  end,  We  think  that  the  authors  of  thefe  letters  have  proved 
fatisfadorily  the  wifdom  of  the  ritual  laws  wf  Mofes,  but  the  immutability, 
or,  as  the  Rabbies  fay,  the  eternity  of  thefe  laws,  is  not  a  ncceflary  confequence 
from  the  wifdom  of  them. 

ift,  Our  authors  coiifefs  that  it  is  not  exaA'y  known  what  animals  were 
forbidden  by  ibme  of  thefe  laws.  Here  then  are  fome  ritual  laws,  which  muft 
necefTarily  be  unobfcrved,  thro' the  ignorance  of  terms,  adly,  Even  the  wif- 
dom of  many  of  thefe  laws,  was  evidently  relative  to  the  circumftances  cf 
times,  places,  morals  of  neighbouring  nations,  &c.  Now  the  times  are  no 
longer  the  fame,  manners  have  changed;  and  fince  Adrian  and  Pflmanazar, 
thefcattered  Jews  have  inhabited  other  climates.  3iily,  The  chief  end  of 
the  greatefl  part  of  thefe  laws  was  to  prefcrve  the  Ifraelites  from  idolatry. 
Can  thefe  be  loyked  on  as  necelTary  where  there  is  no  idolatry  ?  And  will 
they  be  fo  on  that  day  when  all  nations  fhall  be  united  in  the  one  faith,  and 
inthe  worfliip  of  the  one  true  God.  4thly,  Their  prophets  have  foretold 
this  union,  they  have  foretold  that  a  purer  worftiip  was  to  be  fubflitutcd  in 
place  of  their  ceremonies. 

We  invite  thofe  Jews  who  beKeve  in  the  immutability  and  eternity  of  ili 
their  laws,  to  rcfleit  on  what  we  have  now  faid.     Chrlf.. 


CERTAIN       J    E    ^Y    £.  i6i 

LETTER     III. 

Of  toleration  among  the  yews.  Examination  of  thefirjl 
qiieftion  which  the  learned  critick  propofes  to  hiju^ 
felf,  in  the fe  two  chapters^  whether  intolerance  was  of 
divine  right  in  the  fevjijl:)  religion  ?  That  the  fewilh 
religion  was  intolerant.  Thtit  it  was  not  the  $nly 
intolerant  one.  And  that  it  was  more  wifely  fo^ 
than  the  laws   of  ancient  nations. 


I 


T  Is  now  time,  fir,  to  go  to  that  which  is,  or  ought 
to  be  the  principal  object  of  your  two  chapters.  You 
propole,  you  fay,  to  difcufs  two  quelHons.  ift.  Whe- 
ther intolerance  was  of  divine  right  in  the  Jewifh  re- 
ligion? 2dly  Whether  it  was  always  pradifed  in  it  ? 
Wc  fhall  follow  the  f'nne  order  here,  and  examine  in 
turn  what   you  fay  on  each  of  thefe  queftions. 

Let  us  begin  by  the  tiril,  and  confider  not  only 
whether  the  Jewilh  law  v/as  intolerant,  but  alfo,  why 
itwasfo.  Whether  it  was  the  only  intolerant  law, 
and  in  what  refpefl:  it  was  fo.  Thefe  objefls,  which 
feem  interefling  to  us,  (hall  be  the  fole  bufmefs  of  this 
letter.  May  it  be  the  occafion  of  giving  you  fome 
moments  of  pleafure ! 

§    I .  That  the  Jevjijli  law  was  intolerant  with  re^ 
fpe6l  to  worjhip. 

By  your  manner  of  beginning,  fir,  we  thought 
that  you  would  have  endeavoured  to  authorize  to- 
leration, by  fome  text  of  the  Jewifh  code,  explained 
in  your  ufual  way.  But  not  at  all.  You  freely  con- 
fefs  that  fevere  laws  are  found  in  this  code  relative  to 
worlhip,  and  ftill  more  fevere  punifliments.  Nothing 
is  more  certain. 

There  we  are  commanded,  not  only  to  worfhip 
none  others  except  God,  but  it  is  bcfides  exprefsly 
ordered,  that  whofoever  facrifces  to  any  other  gods, 
than  the  Almighty,  Jhall  he  put  to  death  %vithout  remif- 


1 62  Letters     of 

f.(}n  ,  Exodus,  paffim,  to  which  Deuteronomy  adds, 

I/t/jy  brother  J  ihefon  of  thy  mother,  or  thy  f on,  or  thy 

daughter,    entice  thee fecretly,  faying,  let  us  go  and  ferine 

other  gods  which  thou   hajl   not  known,  thou  nor  thy 

fathers,  thou  foall  not   confent  unto   him  nor  hearken 

unto  him.,  neither  fjall  thine  eye  pity  him.     But  thou 

fhiiH  furely  kill  him.     And  thou  ffoalt  fione  him   with 

floncs  th:it   he  die,  becaufe  he  hath  fought  to    thruji 

thee  away  from  the  Lord  thy   God.     Deuteronomy, 

ch.    13. 

With  fuch  rigour  the  law  treats  thofe,  who  fhall 
entice  their  brethen  from  the  true  woriliip,  pretend- 
ed prophets,  friends,  relations,  they  inuft  be  informed 
againft,  floned,  and  die,  becaufe  they  have  fpoke  (f 
rebellion  againfl  Jehovah.  "  And  if  it  be  found  that 
"  any  of  the  cities  of  Ifrael,  by  the  folicitation  of 
*•  its  inhabitants,  has  left  the  Lord,  to  ferve  other 
"  Gods,  the  law  orders  that  a  judicial  inquiry  fhall 
"  be  made  on  it,  and  that  if  the  crime  be  proved, 
"  and  the  people  found  to  be  hardened  in  their 
apoflacy,"  then  they  jh all  furely  fmite  the  inhabi- 
tants of  that  city  with  the  edge  of  thefword,  dejlroying 
it  utterly.     Deuteronomy,  ch.   12. 

Examples  of  the  utmoft  feverity  confirm  thefe 
flatutes.  The  worfliippers  of  the  golden  calf  are 
flaughtered  without  mercy.  The  worfliip  of  the  God 
of  Madian  is  puniflied  by  death.  And  as  foon  as 
the  tribes  beyond  Jordan  are  fufpecled  of  raifmg 
altars  to  flrange  gods,  all  Ifrael  is  in  arms  to  de- 
flroy  them.  See  the  books  of  Exodus  and  Num- 
bers. 

Therefore  it  is  certain  that  the  divine  law  of  the 
]cws  was  intolerant,  and  fevere,  with  regard  to 
worfliip.  It  was.fo  neccffarily,  and  could  not  be 
otherwife.  Why  ?  This  is  what  you  feem  not  to 
have  well  underiiood,  or,  not  to  have  been  willing  to 
inflruO;  vour  readers  in.  We  fhall  endeavour  to 
clear  it  up. 

§    1.     fVhy  the  jewi/h  law  was  fo  fevere  and  into- 
lerant with  regard  to  worf^ip. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  163 

The  intolerance  and  feverity  of- our  laws  on  wor- 
ftip,  aitonlfh  and  offend  you.  You  imagine,  no 
doubt,  fir,  that  the  worfliip  of  ftrange  gods  was 
among  the  Hebrews  a  venial  f^ulf.  This  is  a  mif- 
take,  fir,  it  was  not  only  a  weigTity  offence  againft 
confcience,  a  violent  breach  of  one  of  the  tirfUaws 
of  nature,  but  it  was  alfo  a  crime  againft  the  ftate, 
and  the  moft  worthy  of  punifliment  cf  any  fucli 
crimes. 

Breakout,  at  laft,  of  the  narrow  circle  of  objevis 
which  furround  you,  and  judge  not  always  of  our 
government  by  thofe  Vvhich  you  now  fee.     The  He- 
brew    commonwealth,    was    neither    a   plain    reli- 
gious    inflitutioh,      nor    an    adminiflration    purely 
civil,   but    partook  of   both   at    once.     And    as  in 
vour  forms  of  government,  the  church  and  ffatearc 
diftind,    fo,  on  the  contrary,  in  ours,   chey  formed 
but  one  thing.     Every  ftrange  worfhip,  as  it  attack- 
ed religion  in  its  fundamental  principle,  foit  Vv'ound- 
ed   at  the  fame  time  the  ftate,  and  that  too  in  its 
moft  important,     tender,    and    effential   part.    The 
grand   object    of  the  Hebrew    government  was  to 
preferve  the    nation   from  idolatry,    and   from   tb.c 
crimes  that  flow  from  it,  and  to  perpetuate  amongft  us 
the  knowledge  and  worfliip  of  the  true  God.     Upon 
this  worfliip   flood    the    whole    fabrick.     This  was 
the    centre     to    which    every    thing     tended,    and 
the  powerful  bond,   which  united  all   the  members 
of  the    commonwealth.     And  it    v/as  alfo,   in  the 
opinion  of  found  philofbphy:thc  great  title  of  pre-emi- 
.  nence  and  fuperiority  which  the  Hebrews  claimed 
over    all  the  people  of  the  earth.     The  Almighty, 
by  the  original   contract  paffed  between  him  and  his 
people,  hrd  annexed  to  their   perfeverancc   in  this 
wcrfliip,  the  poifcllion  of  that   land  v/hich  he  had 
given    them,  the  fecurity  of  individuals,    and  the 
(i)  profperity   of  the  empire.     Therefore,  he  who 

(t)  Profper'.ty  of  tbecnpivi.     See  wit!i  refpe.fl.  to  all  taefc   points,  E;:o<^us, 
ch.  19,  and  Duuteronomy,  5.  7,  &c.  A't. 


164  Letters     of 

adopted,  or  advifed  foreign  worftiip,  diilurbed  pub- 
lick  trLinquility,  fowed  the  baneful  (i)  feeds  of  divi- 
fion,  and  committed  an  a6t  of  high  treafon  again/l 
the  ftate,  by  robbing  it  of  its  glory,  and  of  all  its 
hopes  of  happinefs  and  duration.  Was  this  a  venial 
fault  ? 

In  this  government,  Jehovah  was  not  only  the 
object  of  religious  worfhip  as  the  only  true  God, 
he  was  befides  the  firft  civil  magiftrate,and  head  of  the 
body  politick.  He  had  chofen  the  Hebrews  for  his 
fubjefts  as  well  as  his  worfliippers,  and  the  He- 
brews had  acknowledged  him  for  their  king  as  well 
as  their  God.  The  worfhip  of  Jehovah  only,  and 
an  inviolable  attachment  to  it,  were  the  firfl  con- 
dition and  bails  of  his  alliance  with  his  people.  Thou 
fbalt  worfhip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only/halt  then 
ferve.  To  worfliip  Pirange  gods  was  therefore  a 
breach  of  this  alliance,  a  rebellion  againil  the  fove- 
reign,  in  a  word,  the  higheft:  a<St  of  treafon.  In 
what  wife  government  can  high  treafon  be  tolerat- 
ed by  law  ? 

Let  us  then  no  longer  be  furprized  at  the  intole- 
rance and  feverity  of  our  laws  refpecling  worfhip. 
They  treated,  and  ought  to  treat,  the  worfhippers 
of  flraiige  gods,  as  the  laws  of  all  nations  then  did 
(2)  traitors  and  rebellious  fubjeds.  Befides,  it  was 
incumbent  on  our  government  to  be  the  more  fevere, 
as  our  Hebrews  had  head,  hearts  and  intraclable 
minus,  a  flrong  bias  to  idolatry,  and  powerful  in- 


(t)   Sred?  of  d'f;<'fion.     Sf<?  above  letter,  tlld.  Aut. 

(i)  Traitors,  6:c.  Ifi  thcife  ancient  times,  when  rough  mnnners  called 
for  fevere  laws,  high  treaf;>n  was  puniflie'l  with  the  utmaft  rigour.  The 
criine  of  one  perfiin  generally  brought  total  ruin  on  his  family.  Guilty  ci- 
ties were  entirely  deflroyed,  and  the  inhabitants  flaughtered  without  di- 
lliiiftlon,  Hlftory  fnpplies  us  with  many  inuances  of  this  feverity,  not 
on'y  in  the  eaft,  but  among  the  Citoks  and  Romans,  even  in  the  latter 
times  of  the  commonwealth. 

The  laws  of  modern  nations  are  very  rigorous  too  againft  high  treafon, 
relicliinp,  confpir-.cy  a<;ainft  the  f-a'.c,  &c.  &c.  Tiiey  oblige  men  todifro- 
xer  even  their  frit;K!s  and  relations,  and  puniJh  with  the  utmoft  feverity 
thofe  who   refafe  to  do  t."     Sa.'us  Poj>iili,/j[>re'ra  Lex,    Edit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i6^ 

cltements  from  the  example  of  every  other  peo- 
ple. 

§  3.  Whether  intolerance,  with  regard  to  ivorfrAb^ 
ixjas  peculiar  to  the  "Jeivijl^  laiv. 

But  intolerance,  altho'  more  eflential  to  the  Jewifli 
government  than  to  any  other,  yet  was  not  peculiar 
to  it.  No,  fir,  fay  what  you  will,  this  was  a  princi- 
ple of  legifiation,  a  political  maxim  adopted  by  the 
mod  renowned  nations  of  antiquity.  In  faft,  when 
we  fee  thePerfians,  who  admitted  no  ftatues  in  their 
temples,  breaking  thofe  of  the  gods  of  Egypt,  and  of 
Greece ;  and  the  different  Egyptian  cantons,  fouie- 
times  in  arms  againft  their  vanquifhers,  fometimes 
(i)  againft  one  another,  to  defend  or  avenge  their 
gods,  we  muft  look,  upon  them  as  nations  no  way  in- 
different with  refpe£lto  worfhip. 

Whatever  may  be  faidof  thofe  nations,  whcfe  hif- 
tory  and  laws  are  lefs  known  to  us,  it  cannot  be  de* 
nied  that  the  laws  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  were 
abfolutely  intolerant  with  regard  to  worfhip. 

The  decree  of  Diopythes  commanding  that  they 
^ould  be  impeached  who  denied  the  exillence  of  the 
gods,  the  profecutions  commenced  againft  Protago- 
ras, the  reward  offered  for  tlie  head  of  Diagoras,  the 
dangers  of  Alcibiades,  the  fiight  of  Ariftotle,  the  ba- 

Y 

(1)  /.ga'injl  one  ancther,  Juvenal  gives  an  inflance  of  this.  Sat.  15th. 
where  he  defcribes  the  bloody  contefl  ot  the  Ombes  and  Tentyrites  011  this 
account.  Their  rage  was  railed  to  fuch  a  pitch,  that  the  viclors  tore  and  de- 
voured the  panting  limbs  of  the  vanquifhcd. 

•Summus  vtrinque 


Jiide  furor   vufge,  quod  numina  ViLinorum 
OJit  vterque  locos  ;   quum  Jolus  credat  h<ibend<it 
EJfe  deos,  quoi  ipft  colit. 

"  ThispafT^ge,  which  is  n«t  the  only  one  of  this  kind  in  ancient  hiftory, 
"  clearly  proves,  fays  the  tranfiator  of  Bentley's  remarks  on  the  difcourfe  on 
"  free-thinking,  that  religion  has  caufed  violent  animofitics  and  cruel  war* 
"  amonj  other  fecfts  befides  ChrilHans." 

The  new  tranflator  of  Juvenal  makes  the  Tame  obfervation.  This  paffage 
he  fays,  will  ferve  to  (hew  that  religions  intolerance  is  more  ancient  than 
fonie  great  writers  have  thouglit  it.  MuH  Mr.  Voltaire  be  of  this  r.un.bcr  ? 
This  renowned  author  pretends  that  religious  wars  were  known  o:ily  3- 
mongft  Chriftians.  Hehasfaid  it,  and  repeated  it,  Icgenih  ad faftldlum.  What 
pleafurc  can  he  take  in  continually  rfpeating  to  his  readerj  falffliOoJs  v/hith 
!iavc  been  fo  often  rqicated  and  fo  often  confuted.     Edit. 


1 66  L    r.    T    T   E    R   S      O   F 

niflinientof  Stilpo,  Anaxagoras  with  difficulty  efcap- 
ing  death,  Afpafia  owing  her  life  to  the  tears  and  the 
eloquence  of  Pericles,  all  the  philofophers  profecuted 
for  having  written  or  fpoken  againft:  the  gods  of  the 
country,  a  prieftels  executed  for  having  introduced 
flrangegods,  Socrates  condemned  to  drink  hemlock, 
becaufc  he  was  accufed  of  not  acknowledging  the 
gods  of  the  (late,  &c.  Thefe  are  facts  which  attefl  too 
lirongly  the  intolerance  and  feverity  of  the  laws  on 
worOiipjeven  in  the  mofl  humane  and  polifhed  nation 
of  Greece,  to  leave  (i)  any  doubt  of  the  matter. 

The  Roman  laws  were  no  lefs  clear  and  fevere  in 
this  refped.  We  need  only  read  the  texts,  which 
you  yourfelf  quote  to  be  convinced  of  it.  Strange 
gods  (hall  not  be  worfhipped.  Deos  percgrinos  ne  co- 
hmto.  Does  a  tolerating  government  exprefs  itfelf 
thus  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  Follow  the  hiftory  of  this 
great  people,  and  you  will  find  the  fame  prohibitions 
given  by  the  fenate  in  the  year  of  Rome,  (2)325, 
and  the  ediles  charged  to  fee  to  the  execution  of 
them  ;  thefe  prohibitions  renewed  in  the  year  (3) 
<j29  ;  the  ediles  feverely  rebuked  for  having  negleded 
thefe  orders,  and  fuperior  magistrates  appointed  to 
have  the  laws  better  executed.  You  will  there  find 
the  worfiiip  of  Serapis  and  Ifis,  which  had  fecretly 
crept  into  the  capital,  forbidden,  and  the  chapels  of 

(i)  .'■ny  doult.  Thcfc  fa(5ls  ars  related  by  Cicero,  Diogenes  LaertJus, 
Athcnajiroras,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  &c.  They  are  quoted  by  Jofcphus  t^o 
the  fopbifl  Ajiollonius,  who  then  upbraided  the  Jews,  as  Mr.  Voltaire  does 
now,  with  their  intolerance  with  rcfpeft  to  worlhip.  If  this  learned  critick 
had  read  Joltphiis,  he  probably  w<uJd  not  have  brought  oti  this  reproach  a- 
pain,  or  he  would  liave  taken  the  trouble  of  proving  the  falfehood  of  thofa 
ia^Ss,  which  the  Jewifh  hillorian  oppofes  to  his  antagonHK  I  at  in  all  proba- 
bility the  illuftrious  author  did  not  draw  out  of  fo  ancient  a  fprlnp.  He  has 
ii'.ort'.iiodcrn  authors  for  vouchers,  Woolfton,  Collins,  Tindall,   &c.     Edit. 

(2)  In  the  ytar  of  Kvme  T,Z^.  SeC  Livy  B.  9.  No.  ^0,  Nee  corpora  vioJi^, 
fay»  he,  affctla  tiihe.  SeJ aaiinos  quoquc  multiplex  rcligio  \^ pUiraque  extfrna  invn- 
/it  \  ilonec  piilt'Cusjtim  puJcr  ad  primorts  sivitatrs  prr^ii/iit.  Datum  inJe  tirg'Aium 
JF.  Iilifms  tit  anlmadverterent,  ne  qvif  nift  Romani  Dii,  ncque  ali^  more,  qurnn  falri 
tolerentuT'     Ant. 

(3)  In  the  year  $1^  See  Li  vy  lib.  25,  No  5.  Incufnti  gra'uiler  ah  !>enatu 
Ediles  Triutn'viriqiie  capllales,  quod  noii  proh'iberert.  Vbi  fetentus  jam  rjfe  id  ma- 
lum nppartiit  quain  iit  miHores  per  trrngij  ratui  fedar  etvrf  Ivlario  Aililio prttoxi  V)lh 
negotium  ai  Senutu  datum  e/l.     Idem. 


CERTAIN      J    E    \y    S.  l§y 

thefe  new  divinities  demolifhed  by  the  confuls  in  the 
year  (i)  57,6,  many  decrees  ofFontiiis,  and  Senatus 
confultums,  without  number,  againfl:  new  wcrfnip, 
quoted  to  the  fena^e  in  (2)  566,  and  a  ftrange  worlhip 
profcribed  in  (3)  623. 

This  intolerance  was  continued  under  the  empe- 
rors ;  witnefs  the  (4)  counfels  of  Meca^nas  to  Auguf- 
tus  againfl  thofe  who  fliould  introduce,  or  honour  in 
Rome,  other  gods  than  thofe  of  the  empire.  Wit- 
nefs the  Egyptian  fuperflitions,  profcribed  under  (5) 
this  emperor,  and  under  Tiberius ;  the  Jews  banifh- 
ed  if  they  would  not  (6)  renounce  their  religion.  But 
witnefs  above,  all  the  chrlftians  driven  into  exile, 
flripped  of  their  property,  and  given  up  for  fo  long 
a  time,  and  in  fuch  great  numbers,  to  the  moll  cruel 
torment,  not  for  their  crimes  but  (7)  their  religion, 
under  Nero,  Domitian,  Maximian,  Diocletian,'' &c. 
kc.  even  under  Trajan  and  Marcus  Aurclius,  &c. 

(1)  In  tLe year  s 36-     See  Valerius  maximus,  lib.  4.     Ant. 

(2)  Anno  566,  iee  Livy,  lib.  39.  No  16.  After  having  quoted  tbofe 
decrees  of  Pontiffi,  and  Senatus  confultums  without  nun^btr,  inmimeraLilia 
dccreta  pontlficum,  Senatus  cenfulta,  the  hiftnrian  adds,  ipiSiics  fatrum  a-jorumque 
Ktatc  ncgolium  hoc  magi^  ratibus  datum,  ut/acra  externa  fieri  i>!tjrint  omncn.que  diC- 
*iflinam  facrif.cdiidi  prcctcrquam  more  Romano  abolerent  ?      Edit^ 

(3)  Li()i2,.  The  v/orfhip  of  Jupiter  Sabafius.  V/ith  regard  to  this  wor- 
fhip,  the  wife  Roll  in  obfcrves.  'I'liat  in  every  period  initunces  nir.y  be  fccn  of 
the  attention  of  the  Romans  to  keep  off  new  forts  of  fuperOition.  And  Mr. 
Voltaire  affcrts  in  twenty  places,  coolly  and  vvitliout  exception,  that  lie  Ro- 
mans tolerated  and permitte!  all  kind i  ofivcrjhip  I      Aut. 

{^)  The  counfels  if  Mecjenas  to  Augufus.  See  Dion  CafTms,  lib  42.  Wc 
think  it  proper  to  lay  before  the  reader,  in  full,  this  paffagc  of  the  hiftoriaii. 
Wc  fhall  tranflate  it  literally  from  the  Greek  text,  "  Honour  the  gods  with 
"  care,  fays  Macsnas  to  Auguftus,  according  to  the  cufloms  of  your  fathers, 

and  c'impel  others  to  honour  them.  Hate  thofe  who  innovate  in  religion, 
"  and/M^'i  them,  not  only  hecaufe  of  the  gods,  he  that  dtfpifesthem  l.as  no 
"  rcfped  for  any  thing,  but  hecaufe  tliey  who  introduce  new  gods,  prevail 
«  on  many  perfons  to  follow  ftrange  laws,  and  tiiat  from  ihcnce  arife  aflocii- 
"  tions  by  oath,  cabals,  parties,  all  things  dangerous  in  a  monarchy.  buffLT 
"no  Atheifts  nor  Magicians  "  We  invite  Mr.  Voltaire  to  confult  the  ori- 
ginal, and  to  judge  whether  this  tranflation  is  exaft,  at  Icaft  in  the  tftcntial 
I'arts.     Edit 

(5)  Under  this  Emperor.  .Agrippa  profcribed  them.  See  Dion  CalTius,  Kb. 
54.  The  conl'uis  Gabiniusand  P.fo  had  already,  fonie  years  befoic,  thrown 
down  the  altars  raifed  in  the  capirol  to  the  gsds  cf  Egypt.     Avt. 

(6)  Renounce thi-lr  Religion.  Tacitus  informs  US  of  tJiis.  Cederent  Iljtia  n'lft 
uriem  ante  diem  pr:f.riOi  ritus  exu-jfent.  ?ee  Annals,    lib.    2.    No.    8j.      Avt. 

(7)  But  tl/ei,  reiifiun-  Sec  Piiny's  fjmouj  letter  to  Trajan,  quoted  below 
by  one  of  our  Pcrtuguczc  brethren,  and  the  pidurc  of  the  primitive  Chrifti- 
Ensdrawnby  this  Jew.  Compare  this  pidure  with  thofe  which  foine  cck- 
iirvitcd  Chrlftian  Mrircrshavc  drawn.     Aut. 


iSB        '  Letters     OF 

But  what  do  I  fay  ?  Even  the  laws  which  the  phi- 
lofophers  of  Athens  and  Rome,  wrote  for  imaginary 
republicks,  were  intolerant.  Plato  does  not  give  his 
citizens  liberty  ofworfl-iip,  and  Cicero  expreisly  for- 
bids them  to  have  any  other  gods  than  thofe  of  the 
ftate.  "  Let  no  body  have  gods  apart,  fays  he,  let 
"  no  new  or  ftrange  gods  be  worfnipped,  even  in 
"  private,  except  they  have  received  the  publick 
*'  fan'ilion."  Scparatim  nemo  habebit  deos  nevetio-vos, 
fed  nee  advenas,  nifi  ■piiblice  adfcitos  colu7i1o. 

Further,  fir,  recollefl:(i)  what  you  have  fo  often 
faidofthe  fecret  of  myfteries,  the  great  principle  of 
which  was,  according  to  you,  the  unity  of  God, 
creator  and  governor  of  the  world.  And  alfo,  what 
you  have  faid  of  the  double  dodrine  of  the  philofo- 
phers,  the  one  external  and  publick,  the  other  inter- 
nal, and  which  they  communicated  to  none  but  their 
dearell:  difciples,  on  thofe  matters  which  might  affed 
the  eftablifhed  worfhip.  It  was  neceflary  according  to 
"  you,  to  conceal  the  principle  of  the  unity  of  God 
*'  from  men  who  were  attached  to  polytheifm.  The 
"  highefl  difcretion  was  needful,  in  order  not  to  of- 
"  fend  the  prejudices  of  the  multitude.  It  would 
"  have  been  too  dangerous  an  attempt  to  undeceive 
"  them  at  once.  The  enraged  multitude  v/ould  in- 
"  ftantly  have  called  out  for  the  condemnation  of  a 
"  ny  one  who  would  have  dared  to  do  it."  This  ne- 
ceility  of  concealing  a  principle  contrary  to  the  eflab- 
liflied  wordiip,  this  great  danger,  thofe  well  grounded 
fears,  lead  the  enraged  multitude  fhould  call  out  for 
the  condemnation  of  any  one  who  would  have  dared 
to  inftrudl  them,  prove  evidently  the  intolerance  of 
ihe  laws,  in  whatever  place  {o  much  fecrecy  and  cau- 
tion were  required. 

fi)  Wuat  \<f>iihai>e[a\ifooftcn.     See  particularly  on  all  t)xi%  Philofo^by  tf 
'/sHory,  art.  MYSTERIliS,  &.c.     Ant. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  iCg 

We  think,  fir, that  whoever  recolle<fls  all  thofe  paf- 
fages  of  ancient  hiftory,  mud  be  furprized  to  hear 
you  aflerting  without  exception,  "  that  among  anci- 
"  ent  nations,  none  fven  conflrained  the  hberty  of 
"thinking.  That  among  the  Greeks,  Socrates  alone 
"  was  perfecuted  for  his  opinions.  That  the  Romans 
"  permitted  every  kind  of  worfliip,  and  that  they 
"  looked  upon  toleration  as  the  moil  facred  law  (i) 
"  of  the  Jus  Gentium." 

Our  aitonifliment  increafes  when  we  hear  you  af- 
ferting,  "  that  the  Romans,  more  wife  than  the 
"  Greeks,  never  perfecuted  any  philofopher  (2)  for 
"  his  opinions  ;"  for  you  fay,  in  another  place,  tbere 
is  not  one  example  aniong  the  Romans  from  Romulus  to 
Domitian,  of  any  per/on  having  been  perfecuted  {^h)  for 
his  IV  ay  of  thinking,'  Domitian  then,  at  leaft,  perfe- 
cuted for  the  way  of  thinking.  And  whom  ?  Chriflians 
or  philofophers  ?  Now  you  have  often  denied,  that  the 
Romans  ever  perfecuted  the  Chrillians  for  the  way  of 
thinking.  He  mufl:  then  have  perfecuted  the  philofo- 
phers. 

Now,  if  the  philofophers  were  not  perfecuted  un- 
der Domltian',y"or  their  way  of  thinking.,  (4)  for  what 
reafon  were  they  perfecuted  ?  Why  do  we  fee  them 
baniilied  from  Rome  by  this  emperor,  as  they  had 
been  before  by  Nero  ?  And  yet  it  they  had  been  ba- 
nifhed  only  by  thefe  two  tyrants,  the  declared  ene- 
mies of  every  thing  that  was  good,  this  would  rarher 
have  redounded  to  the  honour  of  philofophy.  But 
they  were  perfecuted  under  the  mild  and  gentle  go- 
vernment of  Vefpafian.  "  They  were  the  only  peo- 
*'  pie,  fays  (5)  a  modern  writer,  who  compelled  liiin 
"  to  ufe  a  feverity  towards  them,  which  was  contra- 

(t)  Of  the  Jus  Gentium.  See  Trcatife  of  To'eration,  Art.  V.'hcthcr  tJ.e 
Romans  were  intolerant,     y'ut. 

(Z)   For  his  opinions.      See  letter  on  Vaniiii,  in  tie  Notivei:ux  J'.fjJ.injes.    ^uJ. 

(3)  For  his  iua\  of  thinking       See  Plii'.ofbpliy  of  Hiftory. 

(4)  Fur  tvhjt  tiuf'jn  were  they  f>erfetui;J.  Was  it  as  an  eloc^uent  niajir.rote 
fays,  becaufs  this  bold  j'hilolophy  formed  cabals,  and  that  its  n-.cml)cr»  flrovc 
to  pxcite  feditions among  the  people  under  pretence  of  inftruclitig  them.  Aut. 

(5)  A  mo  Jem  ivritcr.  See  the  Roman  Hiftory  by  Crcvier,  a  Icirncd  man 
of  worth,  ahho'  abul'cd  by  Mr.  Voitairc.     jCut. 


I/O  Letters     OF 


a 


a 


ry  to  his  natural  temper.  The  prefumptuous  max- 
ims of  the  (toicks,  inlpired  men  with  a  love  of  li- 
berty,  which  bordered  upon  rebellion,  and  thefe 
*•  teachers  of  fedition,  gave  publick  lectures  of  inde- 
pendence. At  length,  by  thus  Tapping  an  autho- 
rity which  they  fliould  have  revered,  and  held  dear, 
they  wearied  out  the  goodnefs  of  the  prince,  and 
"  their  declamations  never  ceafed  'till  fome  of  them 
•■'  were  baniflied,  others  confined  in  iflands,  and  fome 
"  of  them  even  whipped  and  put  to  death." 

Ijut  further,  the  emperors,  in  banifhing  the  philo- 
fophcrs,  only  conformed,  fays  Suetonius,  to  ancient 
lazvs  ivbich  had  been  made  againji  them.  He  is  right ; 
for  fo  early  as  the  year  160  before  Chrift,  they  had 
been  banifned  from  Rome  (i)  by  a  decree  of  the  fe- 
nate  ;  and  the  pretor,  M.  Pomponius,  was  ordered 
to  fee  that  not  one  of  them  Ihould  remain  in  the  city. 
Why  ?  Becaufe,  fay  hiflorians,  they  were  looked  on 
as  dangerous  talkers,  who,  whiUl  they  reafoned  on 
virtue,  fapped  its  foundations,  and  were  capable,  by 
their  vain  fophifms,  of  corrupting  the  fimplicity  of 
ancient  morals, and  of  fpreading  among  young  people, 
opinions  dangerous  to  their  country.  On  thefe  princi- 
ples and  for  thefe  reafons,  Cato  the  elder  fuddenly 
difmifTed  three  ambail'adors  who  were  philofophers". 
The  wife  Romans  then  did  not  think  that  p'Alofophcrs 
can  never  do  any  hurt.  Why  were  you  not  there, 
fir,  to  intcrm  them  of  this  ? 

We  do  not  mean  by  thefe  reflexions,  to  fliarpen 
men's,minds  againft  philofophy.  We  know  that  it 
may  be  ufcful  to  indviduals  and  to  ftates.  Nor  to 
vindicate  the  intolerant  fpirit  of  ancient  nations. 
"We  think  it  has  been  very  worthy  of  cenfure  in  many 
times  and  cafes,  and  we  condemn  it  as  much,  or  per- 

fl)  By  a  decree  cf  tl:  ffnair.  Suetonius  informs  us  of  this /n  l/is  book  sf  ihe 
f.imov!  thtioi  ici.iMs,  where  he  givts  tho  words  of  rhe  decree,  ^•'c^  i'erL>fn:ij 
'ii;,i  ti'.- f>/.:}i'c/if/)i*Je  e:i  re  cenjuerunt  fatrcs  ct,iifn'i[)ll  ut  M.  J'owpoiiius  1'iu.t^r 
uiiiimai'-vttUtet curaretque  i:!i  nc  Rovo:  tjj'tnt.  J*s  every  thing  may  be  abuftd, 
( iii!of'.['hy  ts  well  a«  religion,  it  is  tl;c  f.art  of  a  wile  jtovcrment  to  fct 
LotiiJs  to  }ihilofci'hical,  as  \<<\\  at  ulii^ious^faijaticiln:.  Lkth  art  d;:iive- 
r'l'jip.     £.»';'/• 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i;i 

haps  more  than  you  do.  We  only  want  to  convince 
you,  that  freedom  of  thought  was  not  near  fb  abfc- 
lute  among  thofe  nations  as  you  fay,  and  that  your 
aflertions,  on  their  toleration,  in  order  to  be  true, 
fhould  have  been  accompanied  with  many  reftriclions, 
which  you  have  not  put  in.  That  if  a  free  toleration 
^  of  all  opinions,  philofophical  and  religious,  is  the 
criterion  of  a  wife  government,  the  Romans  have  not 
been  wifer  than  the  Greeks,  for  both  of  them  were 
intolerant,  with  regard  to  worftiip.  They  were  fo 
even  with  refped  to  the  philofophers.  In  fnort  (i) 
they  perfecuted,  and  in  order  to  this  they  needed  only 
to  follow  the  natural  bent  of  their  laws. 

§  4.  In  what  rcfped  the  yeivijh  law  was  intolerant. 
Co/uparifsn  of  this  intolerance  with  that  of  other  tiations. 

It  is  a  fa6t  then,  fir,  that  the  Jewifli  was  not  the  on- 
ly intolerant  law.  It  remains  to  fhew  in  what  re- 
fpects  it  was  intolerant. 

id.  It  was  intolerant  in  favour  of  truth.  That  of 
other  nations  in  favour  of  error.  By  the  intolerance 
of  their  laws,  thefe  latter  nations  drove  to  uphold  ab- 
furd  dodtrines,  forms  of  worilnp  which  difhonoured 
humanity,  and  made  virtue  blufli.  The  obje(5l  of  our 
intolerance,  was  to  preferve  the  only  true  faith,  and 
the  only  rational  worlliip. 

2dly,  This  intolerance  had  certain  botmds,  which 
other  dates  were  drangers  to.  It  forbad  the  He- 
brews to  fulfer  drange  gods,  or  their  obdinate  wor- 
fhippers.  But  where  ?  In  thofe  cities  which  the  Lord 
had  given  us.  It  did  not  then  extend  beyond  our 
country.  And  let  certain  writers  fay  what  they  will 
to  cad  an  odium  on  us,  our  fathers  never  thought 
that  they  v/cre  commifiioned  by  their  lav/,  to  go  and 

(l)  Thc^  feifiiul;:!.  Some  of  tlie  Greek  kirgs  of  .'^yria  and  Egypt,  per- 
frrated  the  Jew*  cruelly  to  make  them  renoaiico  thtir  religion 
and  their  laws.  In  the  year  aij  before  Cbrift,  Ptolemy  Phllopatr-r,  had 
formed  the  defign  of  pulling  to  death  all  the  Jews  who  fhould  re fufe  to 
ad.>j)t  the  religion  and  cuftoms  of  the  Greeks.  The  cruelties  pra<f:ifed 
ajcainll  »ur  nation,  with  the  fame  ticw,  by  Antiochus  arc  vtry  well 
known.     EJit, 


1/2 


Letters     of 


exterminate  idolatry  with  fire  and  fword  (i)  all  over 
the  earth.  S-uch  a  pretended  commiffion,  was  the 
crime  of  that  impaiture  who  feduced  and  laid  wafle 
the  eaftern  world. 

3dly,  So  far  was  this  intolerance,  from  making  our 
fathers  hate  other  nations,  that  they  had  alnances  and 
treaties  with  them.  They  did  Itill  more.  They 
prayed  for  foreign  kings,  their  benefadors,  or  maf- 
ters,  and  offered  facrificcs  for  their  profperity,  with- 
out confidcring  what  religion  they  profefTcd. 

To  acknowledge  one  God,  fovereign  Lord  of  this 
world,  to  worfhip  him  only,  and  to  refpeft  our  legi- 
f]  at  or  and  his  laws,  the  law  required  no  more  than 
this  from  the  flranger.  This  gave  him  the  privilege 
of  living  amongfl:  us,  and  even  of  having  accefs  to 
our  temples,  and  of  bearing  (2)  fome  part  in  our  fo- 
lemnities. 

As  to  the  citizen,  intolerance  was  confined  to  cer- 
tain points,  few  in  number,  which  were  not  mctapby- 
Jical  di/llndions^  but  capital  and  pernicious  errors,  or 
outward  afts,  and  palpable  deeds,  atheifm,  idolatry, 
blafphemy,  an  infolent  contempt  of  religion  and  its 
laws,  he.  It  therefore  did  not  oblige  iv.en  to  murder 
one  another  for  paragraphs^  to  bury  men  in  dungeons^  to 
hang,  break  on  the  wheel^  burn^Jlaughier  our  fellow 
creatures  for  fophifms  and  unintelligible  difputes^for  di- 
iiindions,  theological  lemmas.,  and  antile?}imas,  and  fuch 
exceffes  as  thefe,  which  Chriflians  have  laid  to  the 
charge  of  (3)  chriftianity  I 

(l)  /2 II  over  the  earib.  It  fliall  be  fliewn  hereafter  that  this  Jniputation  is 
<l(.nionftrai)ly  falfe  by  the  whole  body  of  our  laws.      Ant. 

(_a)  Slime  pat t  in  our  fokmn'Uies.'Thc  profelytes  of  the,gate,  who  worfliipped 
the  God  of  UVacljbut  who  were  not  circuiiicifed,  and  had  not  eivibraced  our 
law  like  the  profelytes  of  righteoufncfs,  had  liberty  to  come  into  the  firft 
court  of  the  temple  and  there  offer  their  burnt-ofFcring!«.  They  were  called 
tie  i/i/y  ni>natfi'jng  the  Genfiles,  they  had  liberty  alfo  to  live  anion  jjft  us,  aud  to 
ci'.joy  divers  privileges.     Edit. 

(3)  Of  ChrilUanhy.  Thefe  Chriflians  cither  ofTend  ajjainft  truth,  or  are  ill 
acq\iaiiitfd  with  their  religion.  We,  Jews,  can  affure  them  that  the  Chriftian 
religion  does  not  ob!ij;e  men /o  triirdir  one  unolbfr  for  paragmj'hs;  no,  nor  lor 
ihc  mod  important  doiilrinos.  The  tnie  fpirit  of  this  religion  breaths  nothing 
but  mildnefs.  He  calumniates  it  who  afcribcs  to  it  the  mad  ileed«  of  bliiul 
fanaticifni,  and  tlie  crimes  of  dark  policy.  It  equally  condenins  both  thcl'c. 
Thefe  Clinllians  confound  chriftianity  with  the  ubufes  made  of  it.  When 
wUlthofc  great  men  dtigu.to  rcifoniullly  .'   A'lt.  ■ 


CERTAIN     Jews.         '     173 

To  conclude,  fir,  the  Jewifh  law  was  intolerant  ;  it 
was  fo  by  neceflity  ;  it  was  not  the  only  intolerant 
law,  and  this  intolerance  was  conducted  with  more 
judgment,  than  in  the  government  of  ancient  nations. 
Thefe  confiderations  are  fufficient  to  remove  the  of* 
fence,  which  this  intolerance  has  given  you.  How 
could  it  caufe  fo  much  ill  humour  in  a  philofopher, 
who  profeffes  behef  in  one  God,  and  who  lays  it 
down  as  a  maxim,  that  'when  religim  becomes  the  law 
of  the  land^  we  muji  fubmit  to  this  law?  If  this  fub- 
miffion  is  of  neceffity,  it  mufl  be  fo,  efpecially  when 
the  law  is  fundamental,  the  dodrines  true,  and  the 
worlhip  pure. 

We  are,  &c.  &c. 


z 


174  Letters     of' 

LETTER     IV. 

Whether  intoler-wce  was  always prad.ifed  in  the  yew'iJJj 
Jiatc.  Of  toleration  undtr  Mofes.  Ext? aordinary 
affcriicns  of  the  learned  critick,  Miflakes  into  which 
he  falls.  , 


jLS  it  Is  certain  that  the  laws  of  ancient  nations, 
and  particularly,  thofe  of  Greece  and  Rome,  v/ere  in- 
tolerant with  regard  to  worlhip,  fo  it  is  undoubted, 
that  they  were  not  always  rigoroufly  executed.  The 
greateil  part  o^  thofe  nations  profeffed  pclytheifm, 
which,  by  its  nature,  excluded  no  kind  of  gods  or 
worfhip.  And  it  w'as  a  principle  of  policy,  efpecially 
among  the  Romans,  to  adopt  the  gods  of  aUied  or 
conquered  nations. 

Even  when  a  publick  fandion  was  refufed,  thefe 
kinds  of  worfiiip  were  winked  at.  The  attention  of 
magiftrates  was  feldomroufed  in  this  refpe6t,  except 
when  fome  difturbance,  real  or  imaginary  prejudices 
well  or  ill  founded,  accufations  true  or  falfe,  feemed 
to  require  the  fuppreflion  of  thofe  new  religions,  and 
the  vigorous  execution  of  thofe  laws,  which  always 
fubfifted  againft  foreign  religions.  That  is  to  fay, 
what  is  ftill  done  in  many  ftates,  was  then  done. 
Some  fefts  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  eftabhfhed  reli- 
gion, by  adoption,  and  others  are  tolerated  as  long 
as  they  give  no  offence  to  government.  This  policy  is 
perhaps  neceffary  in  great  empires,  in  commercial  re- 
publicks,  and  among  conquering  nations.  It  is  at 
lead  a  mild  and  gentle  policy,  which  the  Jews,  who 
have  been  always  rather  perlecuted  than  perfecutors, 
cannot  reafonably  (i)  condemn. 

Intolerance  then,  was  not  always  praiSblfed  among 
ancient  nations.  Was  it  always  pratrifed  among  the 
Jews  ?  This  is  your  fecond  queftion,  v.hich  you  de- 
termine in  the  negative.     "  Altho*   the  Jewifli  laws 

(l)    Condemn.     Much    lefs  can  the  Jew*  of  HoUanJ,  fuch  a*  ciir  au- 
thors.    EJit, 


CERTAIN      Jews.  175 

"  were  fevere,  you  fay,  with  regard  to  worfhip,  yet, 
"  by  an  happy  contradidlon,  their  execution  was 
"gentle.  Some  rays  ofuniverfal  toleration,  always 
"  break  out  of  thit  cloud,  of  long  and  dreadful  bar- 
"  barifm.  We  fee  inftances  of  it  under  Mofes,  the 
*'  Judges,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  the 
"variety  of  opinions,  the  diverfity  effects,  fupply 
"  us  with  clear  proofs  of  it.'* 

We  do  not  pretend  to  fay,  fir,  that  our  laws  re- 
garding worfhip,  were  always  exaftly  obferved.  We 
know  the  contrary,  and  we  acknowledge  it.  But  we 
think  that  when  yon  endeavoured  to  prove  a  tolera- 
tion, by  the  example  of  our  fathers,  in  thefe  different 
periods,  you  fall  into  miftakes  almoft  in  every  arti- 
cle, which  you  may  thank  us  for  pointing  out  to  you. 
We  fhall  begin  by  what  you  fay  of  toleration  under 
Mofes.  Your  after tions  are  quite  new.  You  yourfelf 
fhall  judge  whether  they  are  true. 

§  I .  Whether  the  Hehreza  tmder  ihe  government  of 
Mofes,  had  full  liberty  ivith  regard  to  ivo^-Jhip  ? 

If  we  believe  you,  fir,  this  legiflator,  who  has  been 
defcribed  as  cruel,  and  fo  often  upbraided  for  barba^ 
rous  feverits,  carried  tolcratw7i  to  fuch  a  height ,  that  he 
left  his  people  at  full  liberty  with  regard  to  ivorjhip. 

Bat  how  can  we  reconcile  this  liberty,  with  the 
accounts  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  How  can  we  reconcile 
it,  efpecially  with  that  fevere  punifliment,  which  the 
worfliip  of  the  golden  calf  brought  down  on  the  re- 
bellious Hebrews  ? 

You  fay,  "  that  this  very  maffacre  opened  the  eyes- 
■  *'  of  Mofes,  and  made  him  fee  that  nothing  was  to  be 
"  got  by  feverity."  He  was  not  well  coavinced  of  it 
then,  fince  we  find  him  fome  years  after,  treating  the 
worfhippers  of  Beelphegor  v/ith  the  fame  rigour. 
Thefe  two  fads  which  happened,  the  one,  when  the 
Ifraelites  went  into  the  wildernefs,  the  other,  at  their 
going  out  of  it,  do  not  fquare  well  with  an  entire  li- 
berty refpecling  ivorjhip. 

You  perceived  this,  and  for  that  rcafon,  you 
flruggled  hard  to  invalidate  the  truth  of  thofe  fads. 


176  Letters     of 

We  have  feen  (i)  above,  what  fuccefs  you  have  had 
111  the  attempt,  and  how  ftrong  your  objedions  were. 

§  2.  Whether  the  Hebrews  ackficzaledged  none  but 
Jtrange  goas  in  the  wildernefs ^  and  ivhether  they  did  not 
ivorjh'ip  A  don  a  i  until  they  had  left  it  ?  Paffages  of  Amos 
and  "Jeremiah.  .  That  thefe  do  not  contradict  Mofes. 

As  one  error  leads  to  another,  you  are  not  fatisfied 
with  the  foregoing  affertion  ;  you  add  others  to  it 
flill  more  extraordiiiary. 

"  Many  commentators,  you  fay,  find  It  hard  to 
"  reconcile  the  accounts  given  by  Mofes,  with  fome 
''  pafl'ages  of  Amos  and  Jeremiah,  and  with  the  noted 
"  difcourfe  of  St.  Stephen,  related  in  the  Adts.'* 
And  you  tell  us  alfo,  what  gives  this  trouble  to  you 
and  the  commentators.  Becaufe  Amos  fays,  that  the 
yews  ahuays  worfloipped  in  the  wildernefs,  Moloch^ 
Rempham  and Kiwrn, 2ind  that  Jeremiah  exprefsly  fays, 
that  God  required  no  facrijiees from  their  fathers  when 
they  went  out  of  Egypt. 

It  would  indeed  be  hard  to  reconcile  Amos  with 
Mofes,  if  Amos  had  faid,  that  the  Jews  in  the  wil- 
dernefs  always  worfhipped  thofe  ftrange  gods.  But 
this  always  is  yours  and  not  the  prophets.  And  this 
additional  word  in  a  phrafe,  alters  fomewhat  the  fenfe 
of  it. 

We  did  not  at  firfl  underftand  the  meaning  of 
this  addition,  but  you  explain  yourfelf  more  fully 
with  regard  to  it, 'in  your  philofophy  of  hiftory, 
where  returning  upon  thefe  paffages,  you  declare, 
that  Jeremiah,  Amos,  and  St.  Stephen,  affirm, 
"  that  the  Jews  acknowledged  no  other  gods  in  the 
'*  wiidernefs,  but  Moloch,  Rempham,  and  Kium, 
"  that  they  offered  no  facrifices  to  the  |ord  (2)  Ado- 
"  nai,  whom  they  fmce  worfhipped."  But  in  good 
carneft,  fir,  how  could  you  pretend  to  confirm  thefe 
affertions,  by  the  words  of  Amos  and  Jeremiah  .'' 

(i)  yliove.     I.eUers  5th  and  Sth.     Part  2(1.     ^ut. 

(2)  yidonai-  To  the  lord  Adonai,  This  is  an  ingenious  cxpreflion.  It  is 
as  if  one  faid  io  tie  LcrJ,  Lord.  There  is  not  fo  n.uth  wit  in  the  He- 
drewi     Aut. 


CERTAIN     Tews.        -      177 

Here  follows  thepafiage  of  Amos,  I  bate,  I  defpife 
yourfeaji-days,  faith  the  Lord,  /  will  not  fmcll  in  your 
Jolemn  ajfemblies.  Tho*  ye  offer  me  buntt-offerings,  and 
your  meat-offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them,  neither  •will 
I  regard  the  peace-offerings  of  your  fat  beajls.  But  let 
judgment  run  down  as  waters,  and  righteoufnefs  as 
a  mighty  Jiream.  Have  ye  offered  unto  me,  facrificcs 
and  offerings  in  the  wildernefs  forty  years,  0  houfe  of 
Ifrael  ?  But  ye  have  borne  the  tabernacle  of  your  Mo- 
loch and  Chiun,  yoiiri?nages,  the  Jlar  of  your  god,  which 
ye  made  to  your  [elves.  Therefore  will  I  caufe  you  to  go 
into  captivity  beyond  ( i )  Damafcus. 

We  allow  that  there  is  fome  difficulty  in  deter- 
mining the  true  fenfeofthe  terms,  which  Amos  ufes 
in  this  palTage  ;  that  criticks  are  (2)  much  divided 
with  regard  to  them,  and  that  it  is  net  clear  whether 
the  prophet  means  to  fpeak  here  of  one,  two,  or  even 
three  falfe  deities. 

But,  whatever  meaning  is  given  to  thefe  words, 
and  whatever  deities  muft  be  underflood,  it  is  clear 
that  Amos  does  not  fay  here,  that  the  Jfraclites  in  the 
wildernefs,  always  worfhipped  Jlrange  gods,  or,  that 
they  acknowledged  none  but  firange  gods,  or,  that  they 
did  not  werjhip  Adonai  till  after.  By  this  interroga- 
tion, have  ye  offered  me  ?  the  prophet  does  not  mean 
to  rebuke  them  for  never  having  offered  any  facriticcs 
to  the  Lord,  during  the  forty  years  which  they  fpent 
in  the  wildernefs  ;  but  with  their  having  been  faith- 
lefs,  and   having  forfaken  him  for  gods  which  they 

(1)  Damafcus,    See  Amos,  ch.  5.  a6.     Aut. 

(2)  Much  divtJfJ.  Some  for  inftance  tliinic  that  IClum,  figrnifics  imao;?, 
and  we  have  tranflated  it  thus,  with  the  Vulgate.  Others  make  it  the  name 
of  a  god,  which  they  believe  to  have  been  the  CTironos  of  the  Greeks,  and 
the  Saturn  of  the  Latins. 

Mr.  Voltaire  commits  one  of  his  ufiial  fmall  miftafles  when  he  makes  A- 
mosfay,  that  the  Jews  in  the  wildernefs  worfhipped  Rempham  and  Kium, 
[it  would  have  been  better  to  write  Kiun]  Amos  docs  not  fpeak  of  Rem- 
pham hut  only  of  Kiun,  which  the  Septuaj;int  has  rendered  l)y  Rsmpham, 
Therefore  Rempham  and  Kiun  are  not,  as  he  feems  to  t'-.ink,  tww  falfe  dti- 
tiet.  There  are  two  names  tor  the  fame  g<^d,  the  one  Hebrew,  t'le  other  K- 
^yptian.  It  is  evident  that  the  illuflrious  writer,  in  fpcakin^:  of  this  pafTage, 
had  not  th*  original  text  before  him,  and  tliat  prol'ably  lie  is  not  fo  wcii  ac- 
quainted with  this  palTagc  as  he  ough;  to  be.     Aui. 


17S        /  Letters     OF 

had  made  unto  themfelves.  This  does  not  contradid 
Mofes  ;  therefore  it  is  not  what  Amos  fays,  byt  what 
you  make  him  fay,  which  it  would  be  bard  to  reconcile 
with  the  accounts  in  the  Pentateuch. 

As  to  Jeremiah,  ifinflead  of  quoting,  as  you  do, 
a  detached  paflage,  you  had  added  to  it  what  goes  be- 
fore and  after,  the  pretended  contradidion  between 
the  Pentateuch  and  the  prophet,  would  foon  have 
difappeared. 

In  this  noble  chapter,  which  we  invite  you  to  read 
over  again,  fir,  the  prophet  means  to  fliew  the  Jews, 
that  the  ceremonies  and  facrifices  on  which  they  built 
their  hopes,  were  of  no  value  in  the  fight  of  God, 
without  their  obedience  to  the  moral  law  ?  yejieal^ 
murdi'r,  and  commit  adultery,  faith  he,  and  /wear 
falfely,  and  come,  andjiand  before  me,  in  this  houfe, 
which  is  called  by  my  name !  Be  gone.  Put  your 
burnt-offerings  unto  yeur  facrifices  and  eat  flejh  ;  for, 
fays  he,  in  order  to  Ihew  them  that  he  prefers  the 
obfervance  of  the  moral  law,  to  any  facrifice,  Ifpake 
not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day 
that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt'offerings,  or  facrifices  ;  but  this  thing  co??i?nanded 
I  the?n,  faying,  obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God, 
and  ye  floall  be  my  people,  and  walk  ye  in  all  the  ways 
that  I  commanded  you,  that  it  may  be  (^i)  well  unto  you, 

Tindal  quoted  this  paffage  as  well  as  you,  and 
with  his  ufual  honefty  ;  he  alfo  left  out  the  conclu- 
fion,  becaufehe  faw  that  it  explains  the  whole,  and 
determines  the  true  fenfe  of  it.  It  is  evident,  that  it 
is  not  Jeremiah's  intention  to  deny,  that  God  had 
required  facrifices  from  our  fathers  in  the  wildernefs, 
and  that  they  had  offered  him  fome,  but  to  make 
them  fenfible,  that  obedience  to  his  law  vi^as  required 
above  all  things,  and  in  preference  to  all  burnt- 
offerings. 

Before  Jeremiah,  Ifaiah  had  introduced  the  Lord, 
fpeaking   nearly  .in  the  fame  terms   to   his  people, 

(1)  Tl'fU  untt  yiu.     Jcromiah,  ch.   7.  v.  ao.     Aut. 


CERTAIN       j    E    W    3.  lyg 

(\)  To  ivhat  purpcfc  is  the  ?nultitude  of  your  facrifices 
unto  me  ?  faith  the  Lord :  /  am  jull  of  the  biirnt- 
offerings  of  rams.  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations,  hi- 
cenfe  is  an  abomination  unto  me.  But  he  adds,  and  let 
us  obferve  by  the  way,  that  this  Jewi(h  philofophy, 
is  as  good  as  that  of  the  moderns,  waJJi  you,  make  you 
clean ^  put  aivay  the  evil  of  your  doings,  feek  judgment^ 
and  relieve  the  op  pre  [fed,  judge  the  fathcrlcfs,  plead  for 
the  ividozv,  ^c.  isfc.  Co??ie  now  and  let  us  reafon  toge- 
ther. Was  Ifaiah  telling  our  fathers,  that  God  re- 
quired no  more  facrifices  ?  No,  certainly,  the  pro- 
phet offered  facrifices  himfelf,  and  the  law  ordered 
it ;  but  he  meant  to  tell  them,  that  juftice  and  mer- 
cy are  more  pleafmg  to  the  Lord,  than  the  mod 
fumptuous  burnt-oft'erings. 

In  this  fame  fenfe  another  prophet  fays,  /  dejired 
mercy,  and  7iot  facrifce  ;  that  is,  I  prefer  the  one  to 
the  other.  Nothing  is  more  common  in  the  facred 
writings,  than  this  manner  of  expreiling  the  prefer- 
ence which  is  given  to  one  thing  above  another.  To 
take  advantage  offuch  paflages,  as  Tindal  has  done, 
Ihews  either  ignorance  of  oyr  language,  or  want  of 
fmcerity.  What  fort  of  a  guide  is  this,  fir,  whom 
you  follow  fo  implicitly  ?  Were  you  formed  to  walk 
in  his  (leps  thus  blindly,  and  to  repeat  without  exa- 
mination his  mofl  frivolous  objeftions  ? 

But  even  fuppofe  the  two  texts  which  you  quote 
were  obfcure,  could  they  reafonaMy  be  put  in  com- 
petition with  that  multitude  of  paffages  fo  precife  and 
clear,  which  atteft  that  the  IfraeHtes  worfliipped  A- 
donai  in  the  wildernefs  ;  and  that  even  then  they  of- 
fered him  facrifices  ?  You  act  evidently  againfl  the 
intention  of  tvv^o  prophets,  if  you  make  them  fay  the 
contrary,  and  you  put  them  in  contradiction  not  only 
with  Mofes,  but  with  themfelves.  For  in  Amos,  A- 
donai  reminds  the  Jevw,  that  (2)  he  had  brought  them 
up  from   the  land  of  Egypt ^  and  led  them  forty  years 

(r)   To  what  jturfojc.     Ifaiah,  ch.  i.  v.  ii.     Aiu: 
(.2)   H:  had  irov^ht  tbert,  15"^-.  Amos,  ch.  2.  v.  ic 


l8o  Letters      of 

thro*  the  tvildernefi.  And  in  Jeremiah,  he  upbraids 
ih^m,  faying^  that  he  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  according  te  the  cove?ia?2t 
ivhich  he  made  ivith  their  fathers,  which  covenant  they 
broke.  Did  Adonai  condud  them  thro*  the  wilder- 
nefs,  and  make  a  covenant  with  them,  v/ithout  their 
having  acknowledged  him  as  their  god  ?  They  for- 
fake  him  for  other  gods.  They  had  therefore  wor- 
fhipptd  him  before  they  fervcd  thefe  new   divinities. 

§  3.  Whether  no  mention  is  fnade  of  any  a6t  of  zvor- 
fhip  of  the  yewiJJy  nation  in  the  wildernefs. 

But,  you. fay,  fome  criticks  aflert,  that  no  a6:  of 
*'  worlhip  is  afcribed  to  this  people  in  the  wildernefs, 
"  no  pailbver  celebrated.  No  pentecofl.  No  men- 
"  tion  made  of  having  celebrated  the  feaft  of  taber- 
*'  nacles.  No  publick  prayer  appointed.  And  laft- 
"  ly,  circumcifion,  that  feal  of  the  covenant  between 
"  God  and  Abraham,  was  not  put  in  pracrice.'* 

.  It  would  be  hard  to  colleft  fo  many  miflakes  in 
fewer  words.  To  begin.  Circumcifion  was  nat put 
in  practice  in  the  wildernefs.  Ihis  is  true,  and  you 
ihouid  have recollefted  it  (i)in  another  place,  where 
you  affirm  the  contrary. 

No  publick  prayer  appointed.  Perhaps  the  hours 
were  not  fixed,  nor  the  forms  fettled,  as  (2)  they 
were  fmce  ;  but  certainly  the  Ifraelites  did  not  re- 
main forty  years  in  the  wildernefs  without  pubhck 
prayer.  And  do  we  not  frequently  fee  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  people  aflembled  before  the  Lord  to  wor- 
lliip  him,  implore  his  alTiftance,  or  mitigate  his  wrath? 
Was  not  this  publick  prayer  ?  Thofe  criticks  think 
they  have  a  right  to  deny  the  appointment  of  it  in 
general,  becaufe  it  is  not  formally  exprefled  in  the 
books  of  MofcS  ;  but  neither  is  it  to  be  found  in  Jo- 
ilvaa,  or  the  Judges.  Do  they  imagine,  that  during 
t'lis  long  fpace  of  time,  the  Jews  had  no  publick 
prayer 


? 


(l)  In  another  plat:.     Sec  the  Philof.  Di<£lion.  article  circumcifion.      -/vt. 
(z)   They  '.u.'rf find-     'i'litjy  were  never  fixed  by  the   law,  which  ordered 
nothing  with  regard  ts  this,  but  only  by  cuftom.     LJit. 


CERTAIN       J    E    \7    S.  18  l 

Nppenfecoji.     No  mention  of  the  fiaji  of  tabernacles. 
No  ;  but  ought  this  to  lurprize  thoic  criticks  ?  Have 
they  not  read,  that  the  former  of  thefe  was  to  be  oi- 
\ehr^iizd  from  fuch  lime  as  they  began  to  put  the  fickle  to 
the  corri,  and  the   latter,  after  they  had  gathered  in 
their  corn  and{i)  their  wine.     Or  do  they  not  recol- 
leift,  that  our  fathers  neither  fowed  nor  reaped  in  the 
wildernefs.     One  of  the  ceremonies,   ordered  in  the 
feaft  of  tabernacles,  was,  to  erect  tents,  or  green  ar- 
bours, to  lecal  to  their  ininds,  that  they  had  fpeiit 
forty  years  under  tents,  m  the  wilderneis..    And  was 
it  not  natural  then  to  wait  till  they  had  gone  out  of 
the  wildernefs,  to  obferve  thefe  ceremonies  ?  There- 
fore, by  the  very  law  of  their  inflitution,  thefe  two 
feftivals  were  not   to   take  place,  until  the  Ifraelites 
had  entered  into  the  proud  fed  land.     Cum  ingre/fi 
fueritis    terram  quam  dabo  vobis.  (2)  Leviticus,  ch. 
23.  Nothing,  therefore,  ought  to  furprize  us  here, 
but  the  amazement  of  thofe  writers  ! 

ISJo  pajfover  celebrated.  This  they  affirm,  and  here 
fpl/ows  what  the  feripture  fays,  And  the  Lord f pake 
unto  Mofes  in  the  ivildernefs  of  Sinai,  in  the  firfh  month 
,  6f  the  fecond  year,  after  they  'were  come  cut  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  faying,  let  the  children  of  Ifrael  alfo  keep  the 
paffover  at  his  appointed feafon,  in  the  fourteenth  day 
of  ibis  mmth  at  even,  ye  Jhall  keep  it  in  his  appointed 
feafbn,  And  Mofes  f pake  unto  the  children  of  Ifrael^ 
that  they  Qoould  keep  the  pajfover .  And  they  kept  the 
paffover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  at  even  in 
the  ivildernefs.  of  Sinai.     Numbers,  ch.  9.  v.   i. 

It  is  true,  that  it  is  not  faid  in  feripture,  that  the 
Jews  celebrated  any  other  paffover  in  the  wildernefs. 
But  did  our  fathers  celebrate  no  paifovers,  but  thofe 
which  are  mentioned  in  it  ?  If  this  be  the  cafe,  we 
muft  conclude,  that  they  celebrated  it  but  once  or 
twice  from  the  time  of  Mofes  to  that  of  joiias.    This, 

A  a' 

(1)  Their  iv'ine-     See  Deuteronomy,  ch.  i6    v.   i,  r.3.     Ait. 

(2)  Le-vU'icut,c\\.  2j.  One  of  the  motives  of  the  inditiitioii  and  celthra- 
tion  of  tbtfe  feafts,  was  to  return  thanks  to  God  for  hij  pifts,  by  oflTcring  him 
the  firftfiuiuofcorn,  wins,  a:ul  ol!,   whiwJi  lud  hctn  i:wh.r^\l  in.     Aut. 


i82^  Letters     of 

I  fuDpofc,  your  critlcks  will  not  maintain.  Befides, 
is  it  very  certain  that  the  celebration  of  the  pairover 
was  commanded  in  the  wildernefs  ?  (i)  Some  learn- 
ed men  think  not. 

The  fcripUirc^  fay  your  criticks  laflly,  mentions  710 
religious  act  of  the  people  in  the  wildernefs.  But  it 
fpeaks  of  the  conftrudion,  ereclion,  and  confecra- 
tion  of  the  tabernacle,  and  of  the  altar,  of  that  of 
Aaron  and  his  children,  of  that  ofthefacred  veflels, 
&c.  It  fhews  us  an  high  priefr,  priefts,  a  whole  tribe 
confecrated  to  the  fervice  of  the  altar.  Could  the 
Hebrews  be  polTelTed  of  every  thing  belonging  to 
worfliip,  without  ever  performing  any  aft  of  wor- 
fhip  ?  It  fpeaks  ofthefacred  fire  kept  up  on  the  altar 
of  burnt-ofierings,  of  the  incenfe  which  was  burned 
on  the  altar  of  incenfe.  Are  not  thefe  fo  many  religi- 
ous a£ls  ?  It  fhews  us  Aaron,  with  the  cenfer  in  his . 
hand,  invoking  the  name  of  the  Almighty  for  Ifrael  ; 
his  children  put  to  death  for  having  ofi'ered  a  ftrangc 
fire  before  the  Lord  ;  and  Corah,  with  his  party, 
contending  with  the  brother  of  Mofes  for  the  facer- 
dotal  office.  Do  not  all  thefe  facts,  which  happened 
in  the  wildernefs,  fupp'fe  fome  religious  acts  done 
there  ? 

The  mod  folemn  act  of  religion  is  facrifice  ;  and 
it  is  of  this  in  particular  that  the  criticks  certainly 
fpeak.  But  how  can  they  fay  that  there  never  is  any 
mention  made  of  facrifices,  offered  by  the  Ifraelites  in 
the  wildernefs  ?  Probably  they  never  read  the  24th 
chapter  of  Exodus,  where  we  are  told,  that  Mofes 
built  an  altar  under  mount  Sinai.  And  he  fent  young 
men  of  the  children  of  Jfrael^  which  offered  burnt- 
cferings,  and  fa  crifced  peace-offerings  of  oxen  unto  the 
Lord.  They  never  read  the  book  of  Numbers,  where 
it  is  faid,  in  the  ninth  chapter,  that  at  the  confecra- 
tion  of  the  tabernacle,  the  chiefs  of  the  tribes  prefent- 

(1)  Some  hnrne,] men.  We  muit  oliferve  however  that  the  book  of  Leviti- 
cus, whilft  It  placet  the  fcail  of  pcntecoft,  and  that  of  tabernacles,  among 
tfcofc  vvliich  were  not  to  be  celt- hrated  till  they  came  to  the  land  of  proniifc, 
ftys  nothing  of  the  paffover.     /lut. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  i8 


J 


eJ  unto  Mofes  thirty-fix  bulls,  feventy-tvvo  rams,  and 
fo  many  lambs,  to  be  facriticed  to  the  Lord.  Nor 
have  they  read  the  eighth  chapter  of  Leviticus, 
where  Mofes,  whilll  he  is  conlecrating  Aaron,  offers 
a  facrifice  of  expiation,  and  an  whole  burnt-offerinp-. 
Nor  the  ninth  chapter  of  this  book,  where,  after  Aa- 
ron has  offered  divers  facrifices  for  hirnfeif,  and  for 
the  people,  a  lire  fent  from  heaven,  initantly  con- 
fumes  the  liediof  th;;  victims  laid  on  the  altar.  Nor 
the  fixteenth  chapter  of  the  fame,  where  the  facrifice 
of  the  fcape-goat  is  ordered,  and  where  it  is  added, 
that  Aaron  did  ivhat  Mofes  had  commanded. 

No,  they  have  read  nothing,  at  lealt  with  atten- 
tion. The  fcriptures  which  they  criticife,  are  quite 
new  to  them,  or  very  fuperlicially  underihood  by 
them.  For  it  would  be  too  great  a  breach  of  honefly 
in  them,  to  affirm  boldly,  that  the  fcriptures  mention 
no  religious  a6l  performed  in  the  wildernefs,  if  they 
had  been  thoroughly  acquainted  with  them. 

§  4.  Why  the  Pentateuch  mentions  no  religtous  aEl  of 
the  Hebrews  in  the  wildernefs^  for  the  fpace  of  thirty- 
eight  years.     In  what  fcnfe  the  facred  writers  may  have 
fa  id,  that  the  Hebrevjsfer'vedjhange  gods  during  forty 
years. 

We  muff  not  however  conceal,  that  in  the  recital 
of  what  happened  to  the  llraelites,  during  forty 
years,  we  find  an  interval  of  thirty-eight  years,  in 
which  the  Pentateuch  makes  no  mention  of  any  iacri- 
fices,  or  any  other  religious  ad.  The  reafon  of  it  is 
clear,  and  you  would  have  iQ'in  it,  if  you  had  read 
thofe  facred  books  with  a  little  more  care.  The 
Pentateuch  entirely  omits  the  recital,  of  v/hat  paffjd 
during  this  whole  ipace  of  time.  You  may  obferve 
fir,  that  Mofes's  recital  terminates  tovvards  the  end 
of  the  fecond  year,  and  that  he  does  not  refume  the 
thread   of  it,   until  the  firit   month  of  the  fortieth 


year. 


In  this  interval,  doubtlefs,  muH:  be  placed  thofe 
long  and  frequent  relupfe^  into  idolatry, whichiVloies, 
Jofnua,    Amo?,  hz.  upbraid  them  will;,  and  v.'hich 


Letters     g  f 

we  clo  not  derny.  This  dere!ict"on,  fo  often  repeated-, 
of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  thofe  apoflacies  which 
became  fo  frequent,  added  to  thofe  of  the  firft  year, 
and  to  that  of  the  fortieth,  in  which  they  joined 
iheir.fcl'ves  to  Beelpbegor,  were  fuiHcient  to  make  our 
prophet  fay,  in  the  oratorial  ftyle,  that  this  faith- 
lefs  nation  had  fervedjirange  gods  during  forty  years 
in  thcijcildernefs.  Thefe  holy  men  fpoke  conforma- 
bly to  the  gei:'ius  of  their  language  and  their  age. 
They  did  not  cavil  about  words.  It  is  a  feeble  and 
childifh  refource  to  flrain  their  expreflions  at  this 
time,  in  order  to  make  them  contradict  the  legiflator. 
This  fir,  is  a  piece  of  chicanery,  very  unworthy  of  a 
writer    of  your  learning  and  and  reputation. 

§  5.  Stra'n'ge  gods  ivorJJjipped  by  the  Ifraclites  in  the 
•vi'ildernefs.  Whether  Mojes  tolerated  them,  PaJJage 
of  the  book  ofJofJ^ua. 

Your   criticks  take   advantage   of  the   following 
paflTage   of    jofdua^    ch.   24.    v.    22.     And  yofhua 
faid  unto  the  people,  ye  are  iuitne(fes  againft  yourfelves^ 
that  ye   have   chofenthe  Lord  to  ferve  hun,  and  they 
faid    toe    are   ivitnfffcs  :     Nozu    thcrfore  put  away 
the  Ji range  gods^    that  are   among  yoic^    and  incline 
yrjur  heart  unto  the  Lord  God  of  Ifrael.     And  the  peo- 
ple faid  unto  yofhuii,  the  Lord  our  God  vjill  ive  ferve^ 
and  his    voice  will  we   obey.     From   this  they  infer, 
that  the  "Jews  had  indifputably  other  gods,   beftdes  Ado- 
nai  under  M&fes.     Alas  !  who  denies  it  ?  The  fcrip- 
ture   aPiirms    it  in    numberlefs     places.      But  does 
it   follow,   that   becaufe    they  had   other    gods    in 
the  wildernefs   befides  Adonai,  therefore  they  nexer 
worfhinped  him  in  it,  and  never  acknowledged  him 
until  they  had  left  it  ? 

Thefe  gods  therefore,  vou  fay,  were  tolerated  by 
Mrfes.  We  fhail  obferve,  ifl,  'ihat  to  tolerate 
irregularities,  which  one  would  wilh  to  prevent, 
without  having  the  power,  is  not  the  fame  thing  as 
to  grantyr/// 1  berty  of  comviitting  them.  2dly,  When 
the  greatelt  part  01  the  nation  fcrfook  the  Lord  for 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i5'5 

ftrange  gods,  how  could  Mofes  avoid  toferati-ng  the 
idolatoi  s  ?  1  hey  fliook  off  at  once,  the  yoke  of  both 
civil  and  religious  obedience,  and  added  rebeliioii 
tD  idolatry.  Miracles  then  would  be  neceflary  to 
punifii  them.  God  only  could  do  it,  and  fo  he 
did  it.  3dly,  The  fcripture  which  tells  us,  that  the 
Jews  during  the  thirty-eight  years, of  which  the  relati- 
on is  omitted  in  the  Pentateuch,  worfhipped  the  hoCt  . 
of  heaven,  Moloch,  &c.  tells  us  alio,  that  they  all 
died  in  the  wildernefs,  under  the  hand  of  the  Lord. 
This  16  all  we  know  of  the  matter,  and  all  that  your 
criticks  can  know  of  it.  The  fcripture  is  filent  with 
regard  to  every  thing  ^Ife.  4thly,  You  therefore 
know  not  what  happened,  and  yet  you  propofe  this 
event,  as  a  model  of  conducl  to  the  powers  of 
this  world.     Truly,  they  are  well  inftructed. 

§   6.     A  pajfage  cf  Deuteronomy,  %vbiclj  the  criticks 

mifinterprct. 
You  quote  the  following  paffage  of  Deuteronomy, 
ch.  12.  v.  8.  Te  Jloall  not  do,  after  all  the  things 
that  we  do  here  this  day,  cuery  man  zvhatfoever  is 
right  in  his  own  eyes.  You  and  your  criticks  infer 
from  this,  that  Mofes  left  our  fathers  at  entire  lil^erty 
ivith  regard  to  worjhip  and  that  under  his  admini- 
{f ration,  they  might  ferve,  juil  as  they  chofe,  the 
gods  whom  they  liked  beft. 

But  what  a  wretched  piece  of  criticifm  is  this 
inference  !  Whoever  will  purfue  this  chapter  cur^ 
forily,  will  find  that  the  liberty  in  queftion,  rcfped- 
ed  only  the  offering  facrifices  fometimes  in  ^ne  place, 
fometimes  in  another,  becaufe  they  had  then  no 
fixed  place,  l^ejhall  not  do  after  all  the  things  that 
ive  do  here  this  day,  every  ?nan  whatfocvcr,  is  right  in 
his  oivn  eyes,  for  ye  are  not  as  yet  come  to  the  rejl^  and 
to  the  inheritance  which  the  Lord  your  God  giveth 
yon,  but  when  ye  go  over  for  dan  and  dwell  in  the  land 
which  the  Lord  your  God  giveth  you  to  inherit,  then 
there  Jhall  be  a  place,  which  the  Lord  your  God  fhall 
choofe  to  caufe  his  name  to  dwell  there,  thither  flmll  ye 
bring  nil  that  I  co?nmand  you,  your   burnt'ifcrings  and 


i86  Letters©  p 

yourfdcnfices,  your  tithes^  Sec.  &c.  This  liberty  might 
perhaps  be  extended"  fti  11  further  to  the  omiffioa' 
of  fome  other  rites,  fuch  as  circumciiion,  various 
oblations  and  purifications,  &c.  &c.  which  the 
Ifraclitcs  could  not  put  into  regular  practice  du- 
ring their  travels.  But  indeed  nothing  except 
the  impartial  eye  of  your  criticks,  could  fee  in  this 
paiTage,  an  entire  liberty  given  to  the  Ifraelites,  cf 
worlhipping  what  gods  they  pleafed. 

§  7.  Whether  Mofes  tranfgrejfid  the  laiv  he  had 
given  of  making  no  images.  Brazen  ferpent.  Bulls  of 
Solomon. 

But  here  is  fomething  (till  better.  "  Mofes 
"  himfelf  feems  now  to  tranfgrefs  the  law  which 
"  he  had  made.  He  forbad  all  images,  yet  he  put 
"  up  the  brazen  ferpent.  Solomon  caufed  twelve 
"  bulls  to  be  engraved.'*  &c.  &c. 

You  might  have  added,  to  give  flrength  to  this 
little  objection,  that  the  legiflator  ordered  the  figures 
ofcherubims  (i)  to  be  worked,  and  embroidered 
on  the  vails  of  the  tabernacle,  and  of  the  fanftuary. 
That  he  commanded  cherubims  of  gold  to  be  placed 
over  the  ark,  which  they  covered  with  their  wings 
&c.  he.  And  yet  he  did  not  tranjgrefs  the  law  which 
be  had  given,  becaufe  it  did  not  abfolutely  prohibit 
the  making  any  image  or  likenefs  ;  but  the  making 
it  with  intent  of  worflnp.  Thus  our  fathers  under- 
ftood  it,  and  thus  did  even  Jofephus.  Now  Mofes 
did  not  make  the  brazen  ferpent,  nor  the  cheru- 
bims   with  intent    of  worihip.     You  allow  that  the 

(i)  To  be  ivorhed  and  engraved.  Our  fathers  had  learned  thefe  arts  in 
^-KYP'-  l  his  |)a(rage  of  the  lesuateuch,  agrees  with  what  profane  autho  s 
ttil  U'*,  that  the  Egyptians,  a  people,  as  you  fay,  In  all  ages  c<nteaiptlbte,  had 
invented  the  art  oi  working  upon  ftufl's,  and  carried  that  of  embroidery  to 
d\\  iiigh  pcifedion,  whicli  thty  borrowed,  it  is  faid,  from  the  Babyloniun*. 
'I  i)c  learned  Count  de  Caylus,  in  his  new  Memoirs  of  the  Academy  of  in- 
Itrlptions,  fpeaks  of  two  fijiu;  cs  of  Egyptian  porcelain  equal  t«  that  cf  Japan, 
and  which  has  all  the  marks  of  the  moft  remote  antiquity.  Perhaps  this  is  a 
new  proof,  tliat  this  <;'j>ite>?.-/>tiile pcoJe  hzd  no  fmattering  of  chymiftry. 

Aa  to  tile  figures  of  the  cherubim.i,  if  we  may  judge  of  thcni  by  the  de- 
fciiption  of  Plzekiei,  and  by  what  Mr.  Voltaiic  fays  of  them,  tiiey  were 
ligures  conipofed  of  various  parts  of  different  animals,  a  kind  of  wh  ymfical 
paintings,  or  hieroglyphics,  imitated  af:er  ihc  Egyptians  who  adyrncd  their 
tLiijp.es  with  theiu. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  187 

ancient  Jews  paid   them    no  hind   of  adoration^  and 
when  in   procefs    of  time,    they  began    to    do  fo, 
a    pious  king  caufed  the    image   to  be     dcftroyed. 
Mofcs's    condu6l    does    not    contradict     the    law, 
but  the  interpretation  you  are  pleafed  to  give  of  it. 
Thefe  are  the  reflexions  which  we  made,  after  pe- 
rufing  what  you  have  faid   of   toleration,  under  the 
government  of  Mofes,  this  great  man  certainly  gave 
all  the  indulgence  which  was  confident  with   a    wife 
and  good  adminiflration,  that  delights  not  in  feverity, 
but  however  ufes  it,  where  it  is  indlfpenfible  and  may 
be  ufeful.     This  you  might  have  fliewn  by   the  ac- 
counts in  the  Pentateuch,   and   in   this  refpe£t:,    the 
conduct  of  Mofes    might  have   been    propofed    as  a 
pattern  to  the  rulers  of  this  world.     But  to    charge 
him  with  an    abfolut'e    indifference,   with   regard  to 
worfnip,  to  affert  that  he  left  the  Hebrews  at  entire 
liberty^  upon  an  object  fo  important  in  the   mind  of 
every  wife  leglfiator,  and  in  order   to  confirm  thefe 
aflertions,  and   to  cail  a  ridicule  on  the  Pentateuch, 
by  placing  it  in  contradiction  with  the  prophets,  to 
add   that    the  facred   writers  affirm,  that  our  fathers 
acknowledged  none  biitfirange  gods   in   the  iviidernefs, 
that  they  performed  no  acts  of  worflnp  there ^  and  never 
ferved  Jeho'vah  until  after  they  left  it.     All  this  is  m.if- 
reprefenting  the  known  character  of  Mofes,  and  con^ 
tradidting  without  reafon  or   profit,    not    only    the 
Pentateuch  and  the  prophets,   but  all  the  fcriptures 
and  traditions.     We  think  that  thefe  affertions,  fi> 
falfe  and  fo  derogatory    from  the  excellence  of  your 
.  works,  fliould  not  have  found  a    place   in  them,  or 
ought  to  be  expunged  out  of  them. 


We  are,  he.  &c. 


1 88  L    E    T    T    E    R    S        O    F 

L  E  T  T  E  R      V. 

Whether  the  celcbrated^writer,  is  more  [uccefsful  in  his 
proofs  cf  tfje  practice  of  toleration  in  the  yewijhjiate, 
from  the  hijhry  of  the  fudges  and  the  Kings,  and  from 
the  conduct  and  the  writings  of  the  prophets  ?  Expla- 
nation of  different  pajfages  offcripture.  Falfe  rcafcn- 
i/7gy  mi/iakesy  mf applications  of  the  critick. 


O  U  endeavour,  fir,  flill  further  to  eflablifli 
T0ur  ideas  of  toleration,  by  the  hiftory  of  our  judges 
•^nd  our  kings,  and  upon  the  conduct  and  writings  of 
cur  prophets.  We  (hall  now  fee,  with  what  exa£t- 
nefs  you  quote  all  thefe  fafts,  and  with  what  juftnefs 
you  apply  them. 

FACTS  TAKEN  FROM    THE    HISTORT   OF 

THE  JUDGES, 

§  I   PaJJ'age  in  the  book  of  fudges ,  where  fephtha 
fpeaks  of  Chamos. 

You  firft  produce  a  paifage  out  of  the  book  of 
judges,  chap.  ii.  Where  jephtha  fays  to  the  Anj- 
IKO cites,  will  not  thou  poffcfs  that  which  Chamos  thy 
god giveth  thee  to  poffefs  ?  So,  whomfocver  the  Lord  our 
God  foall  drive  out  from  before  us,  them  will  we  poffefs. 
^'-  This  declaration  i--  precife,  you  fay,  it  may  lead  us 
*'  very  far,  but  it  is  at  leaft  a  clear  proof,  that  God 
"  tolerated  Chamos.  For  the  holv  fcripturc  does 
*'  not  fay,  you  think  you  have  a  right  to  thofe  lands 
•'  which  you  fay  have  been  given  you  by  the  god 
"  Chamos;  it  fays  pofitively,  you  have  aright,  tibi 
^^  jure  dehentur,  which  is  the  true  fenfe  of  thofe  He- 
"  brev/  words,  otho  tirafch." 

God  tolerated  Chamos.  Therefore  intolerance  was 
not  ahvays  practiced  in  the  Jewilh  (late.  We  mud 
confefs,  fir,  that  it  is  not  given  to  us  to  feel  the  juft- 
nefs of  this  inference. 


Certain     J  e   \v  s.  ig^ 

God  tGlcrated  Chamos^  as  he  tolerated  all  the  gods  of 
the  idolatrous  nations.  What  is  the  ptlrport  of  this, 
and  ivhat  does  it  lead  to  ? 

Other  writers,  Tindal  for  inflaiice,  who  have 
quoted  this  pallage  before,  drew  the  fame  conclufion 
from  it  that  you  want  to  draw,  Did.  Phiiof.  and 
Philof.  of  Hiftory,  that  Jephtha  acknowledged  Cba- 
mos  for  a  true  god.  But  do  \^  not  reafon  every  day 
againfl  people  after  their  own  principles,  fuppofing 
them  for  a  moment  true,  altho'  we  believe  them  falfc? 
this  i-s  what  Jephtha  does  and  certainly  this  cannct 
lead  us  very  far. 

The  learned  quotation  of  the  Hebrew  words  otho 
tirafch,  tibi  jure  debentur,  may  dazzle  fome  female 
readers,  but  does  not  invalidate  our  anfwer. 

When  we  fay  to  a  Mahometan,  "  You  mufl;  obey 
"  the  law  of  your  prophet,  therefore  you  muft  not 
^'  drink  wine  ;"  do  we  look  upon  obedience  to  fehe 
law  of  Mahomet  as  a  real  obligation,  and  on  the  im- 
poftor  as  a  prophet  \ 

§  2.  Of  Michas  and  of  the  fix  hundred  men  {f  the 
tribe  of  Dan. 

But  here  follows  a  difficulty,  which  would  have 
appeared  (Ironger,  if  you  had  not  yourfelf  weakened 
it.  It  is  the  hiitory  of  Michas  and  the  Danites,  relat- 
ed in  the  17th  and  i8th  chapters  of  the  book  of 
Judges. 

"  Michas's  mother,  you  fay,  had  loft  one  thoufand 
'•  one  hundred  pieces  of  filver.  Her  fon  reftored 
*'  them  to  her.  She  confecrated  this  money  to  the 
'^  Lord,  and  caufed  idols  to  be  made  out  of  it.  She 
"  built  a  fmall  chapel,  aLevite  ofliciated  in  it.  And 
"  Michas  cried  out,  now  the  Lord  will  be  good  to 
"  me,  for  I  have  in  my  houfe  a  pricfl  of  the  tribe  of 
"Levi.  In  the  meantime,  fix  hundred  men  of  the 
""  tribe  of  Dan,  who  were  preparing  to  take  pofief- 
"  fion  of  fom.e  i-iilage^  having  no  Levitical  priefts 
"  with  them,  and  wanting  them,  in  order  that  God 
"  might  profpcr  their  undertaking,  went  to  Mi- 
"  chas's  houfe,  took  away  his  ephod,  his  idols  and 

B  b 


^g9  Letters      oP 

**^  the  Levite.  Then  they  boldly  aitaeked  a  village 
*'  called  Lais,  and  put  every  thing  to  fire  and  fword. 
*'  They  gave  the  name  of  Dan  to  Lais,  in  token  of 
**  their  vittory.  They  placed  Michas's  idol  upon  the 
altar,  and  what  is  much  more  remarkable,  Jona- 
than, the  grandfon  of  Mofes,  was  the  high  pried 
*'  of  this  temple,  where  the  God  of  Ifrael,  and  the 
*'  idol  of  Michar,  were  worfliipped." 

Michas  had  idols.  True,  but  in  what  time  ?  In 
a  time,  lays  the  book  of  Judges,  ivhen  there  zcas  ?:o 
king  in  Ifrael,  but  every  man  did  that  ivbich  was  right 
in  bis  own  eyes.  The  fcripture  makes  this  obfervation 
thrice  in  this  chapter,  which  fliould  not  have  efcaped 
3^ou.  Is  it  u'onderful  that  in  this  feafon  of  anarchy, 
an  individual  fhould  have  committed  fuch  a  crime 
wdth  impunity  ?  And  what  can  you  conclude  from  it? 
"Wife  governments  ought  not  to  draw  precedents 
from  what  happens  in  times  of  confufion. 

You  will  fay,  perhaps,  that  the  Danites  perfevered 
longer  in  this  v/orlhip.  We  allow  it,  but  are  you 
fure  that  this  worfhip  was  publick  enough  to  be 
knoiivn  in  Ifrael  ?  At  lead,  it  was  very  far  from -hav- 
ing that  fplendour  and  celebrity,  which  you  fuppofe. 
You  give  the  Danites,  a  temple,  an  high  prieji  ;  but 
this  temple  was  built  in  your  imagination,  and  we  arc 
indebted  to  that  alfo,  for  the  title  of  highprieft,  with 
■which  you  decorate  Jonathan.  We  are  not  at  all 
furprized  at  thefe  exaggerations.  In  the  fame  drain 
of  impartiality,  the  high  pried  and  the  temple  are 
placed  in  a  village,  and  the  temple  of  Jerufalem  is  call- 
ed a  country  bat  n. 

Perhaps  the  pried  of  Dan,  was  the  grandfon  of  Mo- 
fes. The  molt  pious  men,  we  fee  the  cafe  too  often, 
have  not  always  fiii table  defcendants.  However,  fir, 
altho'  the  vulgate  makes  Jonathan  grandfon  of  the  le- 
giflator,  yet  the  Chaldaick  paraphrafe,  the  Septtia- 
gint,  the  Hebrew  text,  &c.  give  him  Gerfon  for  fa- 
ther, and  ManafTe  for  grandiather.  Thus  what  you 
look  upon  as  remarkable,  may  be  falfe,  or  at  lead  ve- 
ry dcubtfuU 


c  E  R  T  A  1  i4     J  £  \v  s.  igt 

Mowever  this  be,  if  ( i )  Lais  or  Dan  was  a  -vUla^ei 
might  it  net  Iiappeii,  that  a  fact  which  happeii^id  in  d 
village,  at  the  extremity  of  the  countrvj  ihaulJ  not 
be  knov/n  in  Ifrael  ^ 

Let  us  go-  a  (lep  farther.  Is  it  very  certain  thaC 
Michas  and  the  Danites  ivorjhipped  idols  ?  Some  great 
criticks  deny  it,  and  very  lately  a  learned  Englirnman 
undertook  their  defence.  He  does  it,  we  think,  (2) 
iii  a  very  plaufable  manner,  and  aitho'  he  gives  nd  de- 
monftration,  yet  we  may  I'airly  conclude  from  what 
he  fays,  that  the  idolatry  of  Michas  and  the  Danites^ 
15  not  fo  inconteflable  as  you  fappofe  it. 

But  let  us  not  adopt  this  conjecture,  altho'  it  be 
ingenious,  and  reds  on  the  authority  of  the  learned 
Grotius.  Let  lis  canfeis,  with  the  greatelt  part  of 
the  commentators,  that  the  Danites,  in  open  deiiaace 
of  the  law,  worfhipped  the  Lord  under  the  figure  of 
Jin  idol,  v/hich  was  taken  from  Michas.  But  it  would, 
be  proper  to  fix  the  period,  and  duration  of  this  wor- 
flrip,  if  you  want  to  make  it  fo  (biking  an  example  of 
toleration  as    you  pretend.     Now,  in  this  you  have 

(i)  Lais,     \i  was  a  cMj  inhabited  by  tbc  Sidonians,  it  was  fituatcdat  the 
foot  ofMount  Libanus  near  the  fource  of  tiie  Jordan.      Aut- 

(a)  In  a -very  pl.iiij'iUe  manner.  He  thtliks  that  the  motbt-T  of  Mich?.3,  a^ 
fl>e  lived  farfroiii  Shilo,  whsrc  the  tabernacle  then  w.is,  and  found  herfelf 
thu>deprivc  J  of  til';  coinf-trt  uf  going  often  ttwiriitrr  to  warrn.n  th  .-  Lord,  re- 
f  >Ued  to  remove  this  inconveiiierice  I'hat  v/itli  this  iiit.nt,  ;he  cotuecr<ilc<i 
the  niooey  which  her  Ton  reftored  her,  to  the  building  a  ciiapel,  or  houfe  of 
prayer,  f.^r  hcrfr^f  and  h-r  neighbour'?.  That  in  tK;;  e.trhck  t:nie->  uf  the  Jcw- 
ifli  commonwealth,  thcfc  houfes  oi' prayer, />ro/^(<t/!)af  were  coniuun!  thr;)'  i.;ie 
tountry  ;  that  what  the  vultrate  renders  \,y J't.ul[itili.i  and  confiitil'-u^  and  evert 
thefe  Latin  terras,  do  not  fis^nify  fofely  and  exctuiivc  y  idtU,  hut  al.  kinds  of 
_  Works,  engraven  or  niolton,ffiich  as  a  portab'e  altar,  cand!eftick«!,>Rd  other 
iitcnfils  f-jrthc  ufe  of  the  chapel,  in  im  tJtinn  of  wha:  was  pra;l. f,;d  in  the  ta?- 
bernacle.  That  altlio'  thischapti  is  called  in  fome  vcraons, /!>(). yi;  of  goJi,  the 
text  may  be  rendered  and  has  been  rendered  by  fome  interpreters,  houfe  tf 
goJ.  i'hat  the  £/&i/CT,  the  5;ods,  wiiicii  Michas  had  got  made-,  and  which  he 
loudly  reclaimed,  might  have  been  onlv  the  utaaHls  employed  in  worJhip^. 
wlii^h  the  author  proves  by  viriois  puTi^es  of  frripture.  Accord  n;j  to  hjm^ 
th:n  Micha's's  crime  wai  not  his  hiving  had  idols,  but  having  imtitcd  in  iii^ 
(hapel,  the  worlliip  paid  to  G.)d  in  lii-*  tdlieraacic,  an  J  having  thoujjht  hlmfelf 
difpeofcd  by  this,froiTi  going  to  Shiloii  to  worfnio,  and  having  brought  ov'cr 
hi*  neighbours  (o  tliis  fchifnf.  Indeed  it  is  hard  to  c<*ivceive  how  che  niothec 
of  iVIichas,  could  conferratc  her  oiic  thoufand  one  hu'i  ircd  pieces  of  lllVcr  f» 
i!;t  Lord,  in  order  to  make  up  idols  of  them  ;  and  ho.v  Michas  and  the  Danitc* 
<ould  (latter  th;rnifc-i  ves,  that  they  \Y;r;-  j'srticuiaily  f-vcujcd  by  the  L-*r.J,  1/$^ 
ca:^e  tdey  had  ida/s  wiib  ibim. 


ig^z  Letters     op 

not,  nor  can  have  any  certainty.  If  forne  critlcks 
place  it  fo  lar  back  as  the  death  of  Jofliua,  and  of  his 
council  of  eklers,  others  maintain,  and  I  think  with 
fome  reafon,  that  it  did  not  begin  till  after  the  death 
of  Samfon,  and  that  it  ended  when  the  ark  was  taken 
and  the  Danites  were  difpoireffed  of  their  conquefts, 
by  the  viclorious  Philiitines.  Of  thefe  two  opinions, 
one  is  at  leaft  doubtful  ;  according  to  the  other, 
which  feems  to  us  the  moil:  probable,  this  worfiiip 
was  tolerated  only  in  times  of  anarchy,  and  under  thti 
weak  and  unhappy  adminiftration  of  Heli.  We 
think  firjthat  an  inftance  taken  from  fuch  troubled 
times,  and  of  fo  uncertain  a  date,  proves  but  little, 
.  (i)  if  it  proves  any  thing. 

§   3.   Worjhip  of  Baal-Beriih. 

Altho'  fome  learned  men,  have  doubted  whether 
Michas,  and  the  Danites,  worlhipped  idols,  no  one 
ever  difpuled  this,  that  our  fathers  paid  an  idolatrous 
^vorffiip  to  Baal-Berith  ;  but  your  notions  with  re- 
gard to  this  worfhip    do  not  appear  very  exact, 

^  The  Hebrews,  you  fay,  after  the  death  of  Gide- 
"  on,  worfliipped  (2)  Baal-Berith,  for  near  twenty 
*'  years,  and  they  renounced  the  woriliip  of  AdonaY, 
"  without  making  any  prince,  judge,  or  pried,  cry 
"  out  murder.  I  allow  their  tranfgrelTi on  was  great, 
*'  but  if  this  piece  of  idolatry  was  tolerated,  how 
"  much  more  ihould  thefe  differences  be,  which  fub- 
"  fitl  in  the  true  vvorfhip  !" 

But  who  informed  you,  fir,  that  the  Hebrews 
v/orfhipped  Baal-Berith,  for  near  iivcnty  yean  ?  The 
fa-ipture  mentions  this  worfhip,  but  fixes  not  the  du- 

(l)  Ifit  prn-j:s  any  thing.  This  ]iroof  Is  fliJl  the  more  \rtak,  becaufc 
that  cojurary  to  the  inditution  cf^  Moles,  the  Hebrews,  after  Jofhua,  iieg- 
leCled  for  a  lonj  time  to  appoint  rhiefs,  vvho  like  him,  ■vvtre  to  liave  a 
general  authority  over  a!l  Ifrael.  That  the  grcatelt  part  of  the  Judges  v.  ho 
fucccedefl  him,  wtre  ackowlcdgsd  only  by  their  own  tribe,  and  that 
not  one  of  them  perhaps  down  to  Samutl,  hid  power  furicient  to  make  the 
true  reiij^icM  iloiuifli.  Therefore  it  is  not  i\:rpriCn^',  that  at  a  time  when 
the  authority  of  n;ovLrnnitnt  was  fo  weak,  and  when  the  Cananeans  were 
ftiil  niaiurs  of  part  of"  the  cou:irry,  an  idolatrous  wrrHiip,  fliould  liave  hciii 
kept  up  with  impu!\ity  among  fome  Daaitcs  on  the  frontier.  See  ChaU  yn 
the  i3o,.k  of  Ju.!ac«.     EiUt. 

(2)  Secju-'gcs,  ch.  8,  v.  n. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  193 

ration  of  it.  Perhaps  this  piece  of  idolatry,  which 
began  after  the  death  of  Gideon,  ended  at  the  time 
that  Thola  becan^e  a  judge.  We  think  we  have  rea- 
fon  to  draw  this  conclufion,  from  what  the  facred 
v/riter  fays,  that  GoJ,  moved  undoubtedly  by  the  re- 
pentance of  his  people,  ra'ifed  them  a  deliverer  in  the 
f  erf  on  of  this  judge.  Can  you  produce  any  proofs  to 
the  contrary  ? 

'Tis  a  misfortune  that  the  fcripture  does  not  fay^ 
that/^w^  prieji  cried  out  murder.  Your  writers  would 
then  have  had  a  noble  opportunity  of  declaring  a- 
gainft  priefts. 

But  had  you  reafon  to  be  furprized,  that  no  prince 
or  judge  condemned  tbofe  crijiics  ?  Alas  !  Cr,  what 
judge  could  do  it,  at  a  time  when  there  were  no 
judges  ?  For  furely  you  do  not  infeit  Abimelech,  iu 
the  number  of  the  judges.  A  zeal  for  religion,  and 
a  love  of  order,  were  not  to  be  expected  from  fuch 
a  monfter. 

If  this  piece  of  idolatry  'xas  tolerated^  hz.  Is  It  aflon- 
ifhing  that  it  was  fo,  in  a  time  of  confufion  and  ty- 
ranny ?  What  I  fir,  is  it  a  tyrant,  fuch  as  Abime- 
icch  ?  Is  it  what  pafied  under  the  odious  and  tottering 
adminiftration  ofthis  ufurper,  which  you  propofe  as 
a  model  to  fovereigns  ?  Truly  you  are  ingenious  ia 
linding  out  examples  ! 

§  4.  Of  the  Bet  hf a  mites  who  ivere  flruck  dcad^  rc^ 
turning  from  the  ark.  Tlje  critich  reflectio7is  on  this 
fuhjed:. 

If  we  are  to  believe  you,  fir,  fome  perfons  produce 
as  a  proof  of  intolerance,  the  feverity  which  God 
fhewed  to  the  Bethfamites  ;  and  it  mufl:  be  granted, 
that  you  refute  this  notion,  in  a  triumphant  manner. 
There  is  but  one  thing  to  be  obferved,  which  is, 
that  this  notion  never  yet  came  into  any  body's 
head. 

No,  fir,  nobody  ever  yet  reafoned  fo  ill.  The 
whole  is  an  ungrounded  fuppofition  on  your  part. 
You  know  this  well,  but  you  wiuied  to  bring  in  this 
piece  of  our  hiflory,  and  you  found  no  other  way  of 


194  L?TTERSO^ 

doing  it.     Indeed    the  turn  is  not  happy,  let  us  fe^ 
whether  the  refletflions  at  lead  are  jufl. 

"  The  Lord,  you  fay,  cut  off  fifty-thoufand  and 
*'  feventy  of  his  people,  merely  becaufe  they  had 
"  looked  on  the  ark,  which  they  ought  not  to  have 
"  looked  on.  Such  a  mighty  difference  there  is,  be- 
"  tween  the   laws,  the  times,  the  Jewifii  oeconomy. 


it 


and  every  thing  that  we  are  acquainted  with;  \  he 
"  unfearchable  ways  of  God,  are  fo  far  fuperior  to 
•**  ours  !  The  feverity  fhewn  to  this  great  number  of 
*•  perfons,  fays  the  judicious  Don  Calmet,  \vi  1  ap- 
"  pear  extraordinary,  only  to  chofe  who  have  not 
"  confidered  to  what  a  degree  God  required  fear 
"  andrefped  from  his  people,  and  to  thofe  who  mea- 
'•  fure  the  views  and  fchemes  of  providence,  by  the 
*' weak  light  of  their  reafon.*'  Such  are  the  feflec- 
tions,  very  foreign  to  your  fubjeft,  which  you  have 
thought  fit  to  infert  in  your  treatife.  You  feenled  ta 
be  in  great  hafte  to  give  them  to  the  publick. 

Altho*  the  anfwer  of  the  learned  religious,  does 
not  feem  at  all  x.o  us,  fuch  as  (i)  you  reprefent  it,  yet 
we  chufe  to  give  another,  which  is  better  calculated 
for  a  man,  who  is  fo  well  acquainted  with  Hebrew  asi 
you  are,  and  v/ho  can  confult  manufcripts  and  fettle  - 
texts.     The  anfwer  is,  that  it  is  by  no  means  clear^ 

(i)  You  reprefent  it  Even  fuppofc  the  namber  ofthofe  daring  culp-its,- 
wasas  great  as  Don  Calmet  fuppofes,  even  if  we  were  under  the  necdfity^ 
■which  we  certainly  sre  not,  of  adopting  the  general  opinion  of  interpreters, 
would  there  be  any  thing  fo  very  unrcafonahle  in  this  account  ? 

V/hen  human  governments  f.icrifice  thoufandi  to  the  fupport  of  law,  and 
the  glory  of  the  lltate,  their  wifdom  is  extolled.  Andean  we  not  conceive 
that  God  may  deftroy  fifty  thoufand  culprits  to  avenfe;e  his  laws,  which  havef 
been  infringed,  and  his  majefty  that  has  been  infuked  ?  "  God,  fays  a  celc- 
"  brated  writer,  Grotius,  is  abfolute  lord  of  our  lives,  and  may  witiiout  giv- 
*'  ing  any  reafon,  and  at  what  time  be  plcafcs,  take  away  th;s  his  free  gift-" 
Let  ui  not  then  be  furprifed  at  bis  talcing  it  away  from  facriloj^ioua  people, 
who  according  to  the  law,  had  deferved  to  lofo  it.  As  fevere  as  this  chailife- 
lueHt  may  appear,  is  it  comparable  to  thofe  dreadful  fcourgts,  which  his  a- 
vcnging  hand  fon>etimes  infli^s  on  guilty  nations  1  ■  .  ■ 

Attend  to  this  Self  love  is  a  partial  jadge.  A  fccret  bent  to  oarfclves,  puts 
da  in  the  place  of  tlic  culprits,  and  becaufe  \vc  think  we  are  fumcthing,  we 
dare  accufc  God  t>f  injuilicc  :  O  man,  light  vapour  !  which  doll  appear  t6 
day,  juft  to  difappcar  to-morrow,  doft  thou  tliiiik  thy  life  fo  impoitant  an  oV- 
jcrt  in  the  figiit  of  the  Almighty',  ajid  U^ift  thuu  H;Ully  forget  ;l.y  Pvlhiiig- 
lieft,  a»d  hit  oowcr  !     Qhri^, 


CERTAIN     Jews.  195 

ihat  fifty  thoufand  and  feventy  men,  were  flruck 
dead  on  this  occafion. 

And  in  fad  is  it  likely  that  fifty  thoufand  and 
Xeventy  men  went  to  look  into  the  ark,  and  is  it 
a  probable  fuppofitiob,  that  fo  many  perfons  indulged 
themfelves  in  fo  criminal  a  curiofity  ? 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  authors  of  the  Arabick,  and 
Syriac  verfions,  feem  to  have  read  no  more  in  their 
manufcript-,  ihin  Jive  thoufand  men  of  the  people.  ]o- 
iephus  goes  ftill  farther.  This  facerdotal  hiftorian, 
v/ho  no  doubt,  polTefled  exaft  manufcripts,  reckons 
no  more  than  feventy  perfons  put  to  death.  And  the 
learned  Kennicott,  has  lately  informed  the  publick, 
that  he  found  no  more  in  the  two  ancient  ma- 
nufcripts  which  he  collated. 

Thefe  variations  in  the  numbers,  induce  a  natural 
fufpicion,  of  fome  alteration  in  this  text.  But  the 
fufpicion  is  confirmed,  when  we  confider,  that  the 
Hebrew  text,  as  it  is  found  in  the  printed  bibles, 
and  in  mofl  of  the  manufcripts,  if  taken  literally, 
.  would  fignify  that  God  flruck  feventy  men,  ffty 
thoufand  men,  which  forms  no  fenfe  at  all. 

In  lliort,  the  alteration,  which  we  believe  was 
made  in  this  palTage,  is  not  one  of  thofe  which  can 
fcarcely  be  expeded  from  a  good  tranfcriber.  The 
omilTion  is  merely  (i)  of  a  fingle  particle  and  let- 
ter. 

It  is  not  even  nccelTary  to  admit,  that  there 
was  ever  any  alteration  in  the  text.  If  we  fuppofe 
with  the  learned  Bochart,  and  Le  Cler-c,  &c.  that 
this  particle  is  underftopd,  which  is  agreeable  to 
the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  to  the 
conftant  pra6lice  of  the  interpreters,  we  may  tranf- 
late  the  paffage,  in  this  very  plain  and  natural  way, 
God  Jlruck  feventy  men  out  of  Jifiv  thoufand ;  and 
thus    the  number   becomes    the  fame  that  Jofephus 

(l)  Of  a  f:ngh  particle  and  letter.  The  w  of  the  Hetire'v^  fr  N  a  par- 
tic'c  which  anfwcTS  to  a  or  e^exydc^fed  o\\.\\t  Latins.  I, ike  f.lher  Hebrew  par- 
ticles, it  ik  joined  to  nouns,  Mr.  Voltaire,  who,  »hey  fay,  underrtauds 
Hebrew,  and  who  quotes  it.  as  if  it  was  his  mother  tongue,  will  feel 
b«tt«r  than  my  one,  the  truth  of  this  rcfledioB.     Edit, 


't^fi  1^  E  T    r  E   R  s     of 

fays,  and  dodor  Kennicot's  two  mauufciipts. 
Therefore  it  is  not  certain,  that  fifty  thoufand  mea 
were  put  to  death  on  this  occafion. 

In  vain,    after  having  exaggerated  the  number  of 
the  Bethfamites,  probably    far   beyond   truth,  you 
tell  us,    in  order    to    extenuate  their  crime,    that 
'Cud  condemned  them   to  death  becaiife  they  had  looked 
tn    the  Ark^  'which    they   ought  not  to  have  hooked 
•*«.     No  one  can  form  a  doubt  of  their  guilt.    They 
rnufl   have   known,    that  by  an  exprcfs  law,   even 
the   Levites  were  forbidden  under  pain  of  death,    to 
touch  the   ark,  and  to   look  on  it  when  it  was  un- 
covered.   Neverthelefs,  in  defiance  of  thefe  prohibiti- 
ons,the  Bethfamites  dared  to  come  near  it,  rafhiy  fixed 
their  eyes  on  it,  and  according  to  the  Hebrew  text, 
uncovered  and  ( i )  looked  into  it.    What  difficulty  can 
there  be,  in  fuppofmg  that  God  chaftifed  this  publick 
and  wilful  a6t  of  difobedience,  this  diflruftful  and  fa- 
crilegious  curiofity,    ;by  the   death    of  fevctity   cul- 
prits.   And  that  whilft  lie  was  miraculoufly  reftoring 
to  his  people,    the  ark  of  the  teftimony,   he  inflict- 
ed  fuch    an   exemplary    punifhment  on   them,    as. 
might  keep  all  others   hereafter  in  due  refpe^l.     In 
fliort  the  crime  of  the  Bethfamites  defer ved  death 
by  law,    and  the  number  of  thofe  who  lufFered,  has 
nothing  incredible  in  it.     Therefore     now  judge  of 
your  farcafms. 

Your  reflexions  fall  therefore,  on  a  contefled 
fad.  Whatever  opinion  we  adopt  of  this  faft,  they 
are  falfe-  They  have,  according  to  your  confefiion, 
no  relation  to  the  object  you  have  in  view.  You 
fhould  have  inferted  nothing  in  your  trcatife,  but 
■what  was  certain  and  ufeful,  and  not  have  overloaded 
it  Vv'ich  fuch  empty  rubbilh. 

To  fum  up.  You  mention  four  facts,  in  order 
to  prove  toleration,  by  the  hiflory  of  our  judges.  Of 
thefe,  the   firll  and  fourth  are  out  of  tlie  queflion. 


(i)  Lo^leJlntt  it.     Tliij  i  s  the  fcnfc  ot  the  text,  an  J  many  learned  in - 
e^fpcters    underhand  it  To.     Ant, 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i^f 

the  ttiird  proves  toleration  only  in  a  time  of  anar- 
chy and  confufion.  And  it  is  not  clear,  that  the  fe- 
cond  proves  any  thing  at  all.  Thefe  are  truly  folid 
reafonings,  and  very  conclufive  examples  ! 

tACTS  TAKEN  FROM  THE  IHSTORJ^OFTHE 

KINGS, 

Perhaps  the  examples  which  you  have  taken  from 
tl\Q  hiflory  of  our  kings,  will  be  more  conclufive. 
Let  us  read  them. 

"  Solomon  enjoys  peace  in  the  midd  of  his  ido- 
"  -latry/  Jeroboam  caufes  golden  calves  to  be  e- 
"  refted,  and  reigns  during  twenty  years.  The 
*'  Httle  kingdom  of  Judea,  under  Reiioboam,  raifes 
"  altars  and  flatues  to  ftrange  gods.  The  holy  king 
"  Aza,  dedroys  not  the  high  places.  In  fljort  we  can- 
"  not  find  any  conftraint,  v^ith  refpe(a:  to  rehgion.'* 
It  is  eafy  to  perceive  here  too,  that  you  write  in 
great  hafte,  or  that  you  are  but  little  acquainted 
with  our  hi  (lory  i 

§    I.     Idolatry  of  Soloriwn,    Rehobbam,  ^erohoani^ 
l5c.   What  they  prove  172  favour  of  toleration. 

Solomon  ivas  an  idolater,  but  was  he  fo  nnpiinifJ}^ 
ed  ?  ^Ve  have  obferved  before,  the  days  of  his  apc- 
ftacy,  were  not  the  profperous  part  of  his  reigOi 
As  foon  as  the  ties  of  religion  were  diflblved,  th© 
monarch  gradually  loft  the  hearts  of  his  fubjeds. 
liis  authority  was  enfeebled,  and  God  who  a- 
lone  had  the  privilege  of  trying  and  punifhing 
him,  haftened  to  denounce  vengeance  on  him,  and  to 
'  kt  fall  that  arm  on  his  own  head,  which  was  after- 
guards to  infiid  (1)  fuch  dreadful  blows  on  his  family. 
But  fuppofe  Solomon  had  been  idolatrous,  and 
enjoyed  peace,  would  this  be  a  found  argument  ift 
favour  of  your  opinion^  concerning  toleration  ? 
Would  it  have  been  furnrifing,  if  fubjedis  who  had 
been  loni^  inured  to  obcdiericie;,  ihould,  either  thro* 
refpeci    or  fear,  have   winked  at  the  fille  fteps   of 

C  c 

(i)  Sttch  dre/ijul  hhrvs-     Sec  on  !'->c  idolatry  of  Stlomon  ahd  hi  coi^fc- 
4ai:uee8,  kiog«,  Book  Uh  ch.  ii.  ^c. 


I9S  L    E    T    T    E    R    S      or 

a  king,  who  had  formerly  ruled  over  them,  w'fh 
fo  much  wifjom  and  glory  ?  And  is  it  the  pjrp  )rt 
of  your  treatife,  to  enquire  whether  fubjecls  ought 
to  tolerate  their  fovereigns,  or  fovercigns  their  fub- 
jeds,  when  they  profefs  a  different  worlhip  from 
the  eitablifhcd  ?  Solomon  was  an  idolater,  but  Solo- 
mon v/as  a  king,  and  an  unhappy  king.  1  herefore 
his  example  fhould  not  be  produced  with  fo  much 
confidence. 

( 1 )  'Jeroboam  and  B.cho  ':oam  ercBed  idols.  True, 
fir,  and  many  of  our  kings  imitated  their  impiety. 
But  in  thefe  great  revolts,  in  which  kings  and 
fubjefts,  hurried  away  by  the  example  of  their  kings, 
forfook  the  worfliip  of  their  fathers  for  ftrange  gods, 
how  was  it  poilible,  for  the  fmall  number  of  the 
frdthful  in  Ifrael,  not  to  tolerate  the  crowd,  of  re- 
bels ?  Who  doubts  but  that  oppreffed  religions 
ought  to  tolerate  the  predominant  ? 

-  §    2 .    •  ConduFi  of  Aza,  and  other  kin^s.     Vi'hsfhcr 
they  iveretolerant?.  MiJappUcations  of  the  learned  critiek. 

"J he  holy  kin^  Aza^  you  fay,  deftroys  not  the  hl^h 
places,  ift.  The  worfhip  of  high  places,  altho'  un- 
lawful, was  not  idolatrous.  Therefore,  it  was  a 
weaknefs,  a  prudential  aft,  bordering  on  timidity, 
to  permit  this,  but  it  could  not  well  be  called  tole- 
ration, in  the  fenfe  you  mean. 

2dly,  Be  it  as  it  will,  perhaps  Aza,  after  having 
done  fo  much  to  re-ellablKh  the  true  worflilp  in  his 
kincrdom,  feared  to  incenfe  the  minds  of  men,  if 
he  went  any  farther.  He  thought  proper  to  yield  to 
necefiity.  And  we  do  not  fuppofc,  that  it  is  the  bent 
of  your  treatife,  to  teach  fovereigns  to  endure  wliaS 
they  cannot  prevent.       No  one  doubts  it. 

■^diy.  Our  hiflory  reprefents  this  holy  king  to  us, 
bamlhing  from  his  kingdom  every  abomination,  pu- 
nifliing  idolatrv,  even  in  the  perfon  of  his  mother, 
fv/earing  with  his  whole  people,  to  put  any  one  araon?^il: 
them  to  death,  vjh'o  "juoidd  mtfeek  zuith  all hishc'drt.,  (2) 

(x)   y^nloifm  nnrl  ReLolj«am.     Rce  "noli  III.  of  KinRS.  cli    r7,and  14,  &:, 
(2;  GoJiJlic'r/aihc-.i.     iitc    I'aruliiionicua,  cli.  is-  Book    U. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  i<p9 

the  God  of  their  fathers ',  and  yet  you  place  him  iu 
the  lid  of  toleracing   kings  ! 

When  we  fee  this  pious  monarch,  and  after 
his  example  Jofaphat,  Hczekias,  Manafies,  Jofias, 
ht.  he,  breaking  idols,  and  throwing  down  their  tem- 
ples, driving  their  priefls  and  worfhippers  out  of  the 
country,  we  fmd'it  hard  to  perfuade  ourfclv-es,  that 
unJer  our  kings,  there  never  was  any  conllralnt  ivith 
rtfptcl  to  religion. 

Do  you  then  in  earneft:,  propofe  the  holy  king  Aza, 
a?)  a  model  of  toleration  to  rulers  ?  If  they  followed 
his  fleps,  we  fhould  all  of  us,  feclaries,  deill:s,  philo- 
fophers,  Jews,  &c.  &c.  cry  out  perfecution.  Like 
an  unfkilful  advocate,  you  hurt  the  caufe,  which  you 
think  you  are  defending. 

Nothing  is  wanting  now  tc  complete  your  proof, 
but  to  quote  Jezabel  murdering  the  prophets  of  the 
Lord,  Jehu  llaughtcring  in  one  day  all  the  prieus  of 
Baal,  Manalfes,  before  his  return  to  the  Lord,  delug- 
ing Jerufalem  with  the  blood  of  thofe  faithful  men, 
whe  refu  ed  to  worfliip  his  idols,  &c.  hz,  Thefe 
would  be  admirable  paterns  of  toleration,  and  excel- 
lent in  fiances  that,  under  our  kings,  there  was  no 
conftraint  ivith  refpecl  to  ivorfnp. 

What  midakes,  what  heedleiTnefs  is  this — Alas, 
fir,  for  whom  are  you  writing  ! 

¥ACT^  T^KEN  FROM  THE  CONDUCT  AND 
WRITINGS  OF  THE  PROPHETS. 

You  are  not  more  fuccefsful,  in  proving  toleration 
in  the  Jewifli  (late,  by  the  conduct  and  writings  of  the 
prophets. 

§   3.  Scwerity  of  EHas,and  EHJJm. 

You  begin  by  producing  two  inftances  of  feverity, 
one  of  Ellas,  the  other  of  Klillia.  You  allow,  that  this 
is  no  proof  in  favour  of  toleration-  It  is  only  an  ob- 
jeclion,   which   you   pretend  to  clear  up,  in  order  to 


*0Q  Letters    oy 

have  an  opportunity  ofcenfuring  the  conducl  of  (i) 
thefe  two  prophets. 

*'  E'ias,  you  fay,  called  down  fire  from  heaven,  to 
"  confume  the  priefts  of  Baal.  Elifha  brought  bears 
"  to  devour  forty-two  little  children,  who  had  calle4 
^'  him  bald-head.  But  thefe  examples  are  uncom- 
"  mon,  and  it  would  be  fomewhat  cruel,  toattemp; 
*'  to  imitate  them." 

Fear  not,  fir,  that  any  one  fhall  imitate  them. 
■>Men,  who  with  a  word,  call  the  bears  from  the  fored, 
and  the  fire  down  from  heaven,  will  always  be  fcarce 
on  earth.  And  when  we  fliall  find  any  of  them  in- 
verted with  thefe  powers,  we  (hall  have  good  reafoa 
to  think,  that  they  aft  upon  juft    motives. 

Let  us  obferve  by  the  way,  that  Elias  did  not  call 
down  fire  from  heaven  to  confume  the  priejis  §f  Baaly 
but  to  punifh  the  guards  of  Achab,  who  were  prcfent- 
ing  the  prophet  with  an  order  from  that  impious 
prince  to  repair  to  his  court,  and  who  were  puihing 
lorv/ard,without  any  refped  for  his  function,  in  or^ 
der  to  compel  him.  Thefe  are  two  diiferent  facts, 
which  a  man  fo  well  verfed  in  our  hiftory  as  you  are, 
ihould  not  have  confounded.  You  have  not  read  the 
third  book  of  Kings  carefully,  which  you  quote.  But 
htanan  nature  isfo  ivsak^  and  a  man  has  Jo  much  buji-. 
nefi  in  life^  ^ihat  thefe  little  millakes,  mult  not  be  mat-, 
^er  of  furprize. 

§  2,  Whether  El'iJJja gave  NaajnanpermiJJiQU  to.  ivor-r 
fliip  idols. 

*'  But,  you  add,  when  Naaman  the  idolater,  afked 
♦*  Elifha  to  permit  him  to  follow  his  king  into  the 
^*«'  the  temple  of  Remmon,  and  to  worfhip  with  hini 

(t)  Cf  thefe  live  prophets.  Thefe  two  fads  have  bcenquotcfi  by  Tindal 
as  w'ell  as  thofe  ofjofiiiii,  Michas,  the  Bethfaniitcs,  and  almoll  all  thofc 
vhic!'.  have,  or  fhall  bcin«;ntionei]  in  the  courfe  of  this  letter.  Mr.  Voltaire 
oniy  rcpeatsihe  Englith  deifts  words.  In  thcf«  petty  criticifms,  he  is  fo  far  from 
haviri;;  the  honour  of  invention,  that  he  has  not  even  that  of  applying  then> 
properly.  Could  he  thinU  That  no  un<  would  ever  read  Tindal,  or  be  ac- 
quainted \v'\*}^  the  learned  anfwers  given  to  him  ?  What  a  part  do  thefe  ora- 
vles  of  philofi'phy  3d,  thei'e  mighty  gfniufcs,  who  think  thcaifclvcs  born  to 
five  light  to  the  univerfc,  when  they  bcconic  every  moiucut,  the  poor  cojii«% 
^'  3  poor  writer  !     Edii, 


CERTAIN    Jews.  2of 

«*  there,  did  not  this  fame  Eliflia,  (i)  who  had  caufed 
*'  the  chiMren  to  be  devoured  by  the  bears,  anfwer 
^'  him,  go  in  peace  ? 

N^amafi  the  idolater  /  Naaman,  after  having  beeii 
healed  by  Elifha,  had  embraced  the  worfhip  of  the  God 
of  ffrael.  Therefore  he  was  not  an  idolater.  The  very 
queftion  which  he  puts  to  the  prophet  proves  it.^  He 
propofes  to  him,  fomething  Hke  a  cafe  of  confciencc. 
Naaman  had  juft  declared,  that  he  ivould  offer  no  more 
hurni-ofering  or  'uidims  to  Jirange  gods,  and  that  he 
ivould^-ijorlhlp  none  but  the  Lord.  As  he  was  determin- 
ed to  keep  his  word,  he  enquires  from  Elifiia,  not 
whether  he  may  (till  worfhip  the  idol  of  Remmon, 
(for  this  would  have  been  giving  the  He  to  his  late 
proteftation,)  but  whether  he  may  continue  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  his  office  under  his  mafter  in  the 
idols  temple,  fuch  as  accompanying  him  thither,  giv- 
ing him  the  arm,  and  even  bowing  his  body  there,  if 
it°was  needful  for  the  prince's  fervice.  This  is  the 
only   fubjea  of  his  enquiry,  and  all  that  Elilha  per- 

mits. 

The  words,  to  'Worpip  with  him,  by  which  you 
render  the  text,  are  a  little  ftroke  of  art,  which  can- 
not deceive  any  one,  who  underftands  the  Hebrew  or 
Latin  word  that  anfwer s  to  them.  It  does  not  necef- 
farily  fignify  worfiip,  in  the  modern  lenfe  of  the  word, 
it  alio  fignifics,  to  bozvov  incline  the  body. 

(i)  Who  bad  cavf^d  the  chlhUen,  Ufr.  Wc  ftall  add  an  otfervatioD  oftlf* 
d-nicd  dodlor  Leland,  to  what  we  have  faid  above  on  this  faA.  1  hefe  chil- 
Ircn  were  of  Bethel,  the  chief  feat  of  that  idolatry  which  then  prcvaded  in 
frael  Is  it  inconceivable  that  an  event,  which  might  have  happened  ai  the 
common  courfe  of  things,  may  have  been  fo  brought  about  by  providence,  a. 
to  avenge  the  prophet,  who  had  been  infulted  when  he  began  his  m.ffion 
and  to  punifh  the  idolatrous  fathers  in  their  children,  who  were  imp.ou*  and 

idolatroui  thcmfolvcs  ?  ,  „      „,  r        •     i  .i,of  uTr 

Tindal  made  one  objedion  more  to  this  fad.  We  arc  furpr.xed  that  Mr. 
Voltaire  has  let  it  efcape  him.  it  def.rved  to  be  infcrted  in  his  two  chapters 
as  well  asmany  others.  Tindal  faid  it  wa,  impoffiblc  that  two  bear,  ftot^^d 
«t  f.rty-two  children.  But  we  may  anfwer  Tmdal,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
fi-mifus  /.  Uar,  to  full  In  fiUces,zs  Well  *.  to  devour.  We  thought  to  re.atc 
fus,  the  EnuHifh  dsiil' s  objcdion,  bccaufc  it  ma/  give  an  infisht  into  hi*  cha. 


202  Letters     o  f  _ 

Truly,  if  we  cannot  fee,  that  this  pcrmiiTion  obtain- 
ed by  the  ftranger  Naaman,  is  (i)  a  convincing 
proof,  that  toleration  was  always  practifedin  the  Jew- 
ifh  government,  is  it  our  fault  ? 

§  3.  Idolatrous  kings  called  by  the  prophet  ihe  fer- 
*vants  of  God. 

-  Is  it  our  fault  again,  if  we  cannot  perceive  the 
flighteft  relation,  between  the  fubjeft  which  you  treat 
and  thefe  words  Avhich  follow  ? 

"  Nabuchodonozor  is  called  in  Jeremiah,  the  fcr- 
*'  vant  of  God.  The  Kir  or  Korech,  or  Korroes^ 
**  whom  we  call  Cyrus,  is  honoured  in  the  fame  way. 
"  God,inlfaiah,  calls  him  his  Chrift,  his  anointed, 
"  altho'  he  was  not  anointed,  according  to  the  com- 
"  mon  fignification  of  the  word,  and  that  he  followed 
**  the  rehgion  ofZoroafter.  He  calls  him  his  fliep- 
'*  herd,  altho'  he  was  an  ufurper  in  the  fight  of  men. 
*'  Ihere  is  not  in  the  whole  fcripture,  a  ftronger  tok- 
*'  en  of  fondnefs.'*     What  a  deal  of  learning  thrown 

away  ! 

The  Kir,  Korech,  or  Korroes,  This  is  dufty 
thrown  into  the  eyes  of  the  unlearned. 

God  calls  him  his  anointed,  altho'  he  was  Jiot  anoint" 
ed,  according  to  the  common  fignijication  of  the  word, 
What  is  there  furprizing  in  this  ?  Can  words  never 
be  ufed  but  in  their  common  acceptation  ?  This  is 
a  fine  refiedion  indeed  ! 

Altho*  he  followed  the  religion  ofZoroaJler.  You  are 
furprized,  that  this  rehgion  was  not  a  bar  to  the  fa- 
vour of  God  ;  and  yet  you  fay  in  another  place,  that' 
its  followers  worfhipped  none,  but  the  fu pre  me  Being  and 
paid  him  a  purcfcrvice  I 

{i")  A  convincing  pro'jf.  It  will  he  ftill  lefs  fo,  if  we  adopt  the  explanation 
which  the  learned  Bodiart  gives  of  this  pafiagc.  According  to  him,  it  is  not 
a  pcrniifiion  which  Naaman  requcfts  for  the  tin.e  to  come,  it  isanhunihc 
conftflion  of  the  pafl,  an  cxprcllion  of  bitter  forrow  ;  and  the  anfwcr  of  the 
pophct,  go  in  peace,  has  no  other  ol)jc<.t,hut  to  pacify  an  alarmed  tonfcientc. 
JJochart  thinks  the  original  text  fufccptible  of  this  meaning,  and  wc  tiliuk  ' 
io  too.     Mr.  Voltaire  is  at  liberty  to  adopt  this  explanation,    £-dlt. 


CERTAIN        J    2    W    St  Soj 

He  calls  him  bis  Jlyepherd,  altbo*  be  ivas  an  tifurpcr. 
in  tbcft'^bt  of  men.  Altho*  Cyrus  was  an  ufarper  in 
the  fight  of  men,  yet  he  executed  the  decrees  of  God 
on  his  people.  For  this  reafon,  he  calls  him  bisjhep^ 
herd. 

But  let  us  drop  thefeobfervations,  and  come  to  the 
point.  Our  prophets  do  call  Nabuchodonozor  tbs 
fervant  of  God^  and  Cyrus  bis  anointed,  bis  Cbriff^ 
his  Jhepbei'd.  Yes,  fir,  and  this  is  a  proof,  that  the 
God  of  our  fathers,  was  not,  as  fome  free-thinkerg 
imagine,  a  local  divinity,  a  God  of  a  particular  peo- 
ple, but  the  God  of  the  univerfe,  whofe  providence 
coiiduds  all  events,  and  extends  to  all  empires.' 
Kings  and  conquerors  are  his  minilVers,  and  execute 
none  but  his  commands.  They  are  in  his  hands,  in- 
itruments  of  niercy,  or  of  vengeance.  Therefore  our 
prophets  very  judly  call  them  bisfervcrnts,  and  his  ??ii- 
nifters.  But  does  it  follow,  that  toleration  was  prac- 
tifed  in  the  Tewifii  (late,  becaufe  idolatrous  kinrs  and 
ronquerors,  are  in  this  fenfe,  the  fer-vants  of  the 
Lord  ?  All  that  we  fiiall  fay  is,  that  the  juftnefs  of 
this  inference  does  not  appear  clearly. 

§.4.  A  Paffa^e  of  Malachi. 

"  V\^e  fee,  you  fay,  in  Malachi,.  that  from  the  rii* 
*'  ing  to   the  fetting  fun,  the  name  of  the  Lord  is 
*'•  great  among  the  nations,  and  that  pure  oblations 
**  are  everv  where  oifered  unto  him." 

But  as  in  the  time  of  Malachi,  idolatry  was  fprcad 
thro'  almoftall  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  prophet 
neither  did  nor  could  mean,  that  then  pure  obiations 
Were  every  where  offered  unto  the  Lord.  This  text 
therefore,  is  only  a  prophecy,  of  what  was  to  iiappeii 
on  that  day,  when  all  nations  were  to  return  to  the 
true  God.  A  man  who  underftands  Hebrew  as  well 
as  you  do,  murt:  know  that  in  this  language,  the  fame  * 
inilitSlion  of  the  verb,  f^rves  to  denote  the  future,  as 
well  as  the  prefent  time.  Now  what  relairon* has  this 
prophecy  with  your  cuellions  on  toleration  i* 


ieo4  LlTtEkS      0¥ 

$  5.  Of  the  Nincvitcs,of  Melchifedeck,  ofBuIanu^,  ^d, 

From  Malachi,  you  fuddenly  pafs  to  the  Nine- 
rites,  and  to  Melchifedeck,  &c.  "  God,  you  fay^ 
"  protects  the  idolatrous  Ninevites,  he  threatens  and 
"  forgives  them.,  Melchifedeck,  who  was  not  a  Jew, 
"was  a  priefl:  of  God;  Balaam,  an  idolater,  was 
*'  a  prophet.  The  fcripture  therefore  fiiews  us,  that 
*'  God  not  only  tolerated  the  other  nations,  but  alfo 
*'  took  a  fatherly  care  of  them.  And  after  this,  we 
•'  dare  to  be  intolerant  !'* 

What  does  all  this  prove,  fir  ?  Does  the  example 
of  Melchifedeck,  who,  tho'  not  a  Jew,  wasawor- 
Clipper  and  prieil  of  the  true  God,  prove  that  God 
tolerated  idolaters,  or  that  the  Jewifh  government, 
was  not  always  intolerant  ? 

Balaa?n  an  idolater.  Are  you  fure  of  this  ?  Do  yoii 
not  know,  that  this  is  a  very  doubtful  queftion^ 
which  you  decide  in  a  moment  ? 

Balaam  an  idolater,  was  a  prophet*  Generally 
thofe  who  believe  Balaam  was  an  idolater,  do  not 
look  upon  him  as  a  prophet,  but  as  a  magician. 
And  thofe  who  believe  him  a  prophet,  do  not  look 
upon  him  as  an  idolater,  but  as  an  avaricious  corrupt 
man.  Be  that  as  it  will,  Balaam  foon  obtained  the 
reward  due  to  his  crimes,  an  unhappy  death.  Thus 
God  tolerates  him. 

God  tolerates  idolaters^  and  after  this,  ive  dare  to  Is 
irtlolerant.  An  admirable  way  of  reafoning  indeed  I 
But  God  tolerates  highway-men  too,  and  would  y.  u 
infer  from  this,  that  human  governments  ought  to  d.o 
fo  as  well  as  he  ? 

§  6.  Paffagcs  ofEzchieh 

You  conclude,  fir,  by  faying,  as  a  flirong  proof  of 
toleration  in  the  Jevv'ifli  government,  that  the  book  of 
Ezekicl,  which,  according  to  you,  gives  the  Jewijh 
precepts  quite  contrary  to  thofe,  which  Mofes  had  for- 
merly given,  was  infertcd  into  the  canon  of  writers,  in- 
f pi  red  by  God. 

"  Mofes,  you  fay,  often  tells  the  Jews,  that  God 
*'  punifhcs  the   fathers  in   the  children,    unto  th« 


t  t.  K  T  A  I  tJ     Jews.  20^ 

'^  fourth  generation.  And  yet  notv/ithftandlng  this 
"  his  exprefs  declaration,  Ezekiel  tells  them,  that 
"  the  fon  fhall  not  bear  the  iniquities  of  the  iather. 
*'  He  goes  even  fo  far,  as  to  make  God  lay,  that  he 
*'  had  given  them  precepts  which  were  not  good. 
*'  But  this  book  was  not  the  lefs  welcome  into  the 
"  canon,  tho'  it  plainly  contradiclsd  I'.Iofcs," 

In  order  to  make  this  proof  conclufive,  this  pre- 
tended contradiction  fhould  be  iheva  to  be  real,  -md 
it  fliould  appear,  that  the  ancient  Jews  acknowledged 
this.     Now  neither  points  can  be  fhewn. 

MofeS  fays,  that  guilty  fathers  flmll  be  puniiTied 
unto  the  fourth  generation  in  their  cl.ildrcn,  who 
Ihall  happen  to  be  guilty  like  themfelves.  Ezeldel 
fays,  that  children  v/ho  have  not  tranrgrelTed,  fhall 
hot  be  punifhed  for  the  fins  of  their  fathers.  Is  there 
any  contradiction  in  this  ? 

l"he  Jews,  during  the  Babylonifli  captivity,  pre=» 
tended   that  they  were  punifhed  only  for  the  fins  o£ 
their  fathers.    The  .fathers^  faid  they,  have  eaUnfouf 
"grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  ftt  on  edge.    In  or- 
der to  filence  them,  Ezekiel  affures  them  in  the  mod 
pofitive  manner,  and  flrongeft  term«,   that   if  they 
will  ceafe  from  following  the  examples  of  their    fa- 
thers^ and  imitating  their    crimes,  they  fliall  not  be 
punifhed  for  them.     Now,  Id!  faith  he,  if  a  man  be^- 
get  a  fun  that  feclh  all  his  fathers  fins,  which  he  hath  ^ 
done,  and  confidereth^  and  doth  not  fuch  like ;    that 
hath  executed  God's  judgments,  and  -walked  in  his  /la~ 
tutes,  he  Jbdll  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  his  father,  he 
Jhallfirely  live.     Ezekiel  therefore,  does  not  contra- 
dict Mofes,  who  fpeaks  only  of  thofe  children,  who 
followed  the  evil  examples  of  their  fathers,  and  whom 
God   punifhes    at   the   fkme  time,  for  the  crimes  of 
their  fathers,  and  for  their  own. 

Thus  a  learned  Englifliman,  in  his  anfwer  to  Tin- 
dal,  who  makes  the  fame  objection,  explains  thefe 
palfages,  and  this  explanation  i.^  not  new.  It  is  not 
only  that  of  our  molt  famous  modern  r;\bbies,  fuch  as 
AbenEzra,  Solomon,  Jarchi,  theTalmudiit,  in  the 

D  d 


iq6  Letters 


o  y 


Guemara,  but  alio,  that  which  the  Chaldaick  para- 
phraft,  had  adopted  lone  before  them.  They  all  un- 
derwood the  text  of  Mofe?,  to  mean  rebellious  chil- 
dren, ivho  'walk  in  the  perverfe  ways  of  their  fathers. 
Neither  the  ancient  Jews,  nor  the  moderns,  there- 
fore, ev^erackriowledged  this  pretended  formal  con- 
tradi6tion,  v/hich  you  fee  in  thofe  paflages,  and  which 
is  not  in  them. 

As  to  what  you  add,  that  Ezekiel  ^oes  fo  far  as  to 
make  God  fay,  that  he  had  given  his  people  precepts 
ivhich  ivsre  not  good;  if  the  prophet  had  meant  by 
thefe  precepts  and  laws,  given  to  the  Hebrews  in  the 
wildernefs,  thofe  precepts,  thofe  laws,  which  Mofes 
calls  holy,  excellent,  wonderful,  the  contradiction 
would  certainly  be  plain.  But  upon  opening  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  from  which  you  take 
this  obje£lion,  I  read  the  following  w-ords,  7  caufed 
them  to  go  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  fays  the  Lord, 
fj^eaking  to  the  Jews,  and  brought  them  into  the  wil- 
dernef^.  And  I  gave  theju  myftatutes,  and  (hewed  them 
my  Judg?uents,  which  if  a  man  do,  he  fhall  eve7i  live  in 
them.  Moreover,  alfo,  Igavethemmyfabbaths,  to- be 
af.gn  between  me  and  them,  that  they  might  knew  ihat^ 
lam  the  Lord,  who  fanclify  them.  But  the  hoifc  of  Jf- 
rael  i-ebelled  againji  mt  in  the  wildernefs,  they  walked 
not  in  my  fiatutes,  and  they  defpifed  my  judginents, 
which  if  a  man  do,  he  fhall  even  live  in  them.  Then, 
If  aid,  I  would  pour  out  my  fury  upon  them,  in  the  wil- 
dernefs to  confume  them.  £^ ever th clefs,  mine  eyefpared 
them,  from  defer oying  them^  neither  did  I  make  an  end 
of  them,  in  the  wildernefs.  But,  I  faid  unto  their  chil- 
dren in  the  wildernefs,  walk  ye  not  in  the  fiatutes  of 
'j  our  fathers,  neither  obferve  their  judgments,  nor  dcfJs 
"I  our  I  elves  with  their  idols  ;  I  am  the  Lord  your  God, 
walk  in  my  fiatutes,  and  keep  my  commandments  and  do 
them.  'Notwithflanding,  the  children  rebelled  againfi 
mc,  they  walked  not  in  my  fcatutes,  neither  kept  my 
judgments,  to  de  them,  which  if  a  man  do,  he  pall  even 
live  in  them. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  207 

Ezekiei  therefore,  does  not  deny  the  excellence  of 
thofe  precepts,  which  God  gave  the  Ifraelites  in  thfe 
wildernefs,  and  of  which  Mofes  extols  the  goodnefs. 
On  the  contrary,  he  acknowledges,  and  thrice  re- 
peats, that  the fe  precepts  were  good^  and  that  if  a  man 
do  them,  hejhalleven  live  in  them.  So  far  then  Eze- 
kiei agrees  perfedlly  with  Mofes. 

But  he  adds,  dill  continuing  to  fpenk  in  the  perfon 
of  God,  I  lifted  up  mine  hand  alfo  to  th'^ra  in  the  zvil- 
derncfs,  that  is,  1  fwore  to  them,  that  I  woiddfcaiter 
them  among  the  heathen,  and  difperfe  them  thro'  the 
countries,  becaufe  they  had  not  executed  my  judgments^ 
but  had  defpifed  my  ftatutes,  and  had  polluted  -my  fab- 
baths,  and  their  eyes  were  after  their  fathers  idols  ; 
wherefore  I  gave  them  alfojiatutes  that  wore  not  good, 
and  judgments  whereby  they  fooidd  not  live.  And  I  pol- 
luted  them  in  their  own  gifts,  in  that  they  caufed  to  pafs 
thro*  the  fire,  all  that  ope  net  h  the  womb. 

As  if  he  had  faid,  becaufe  they  had  rejected  my 
ftatutes  and  my  precepts,  the  obfervance  of  which 
would  have  them  live  and  be  happy,  I  gave  them, 
that  is,  (i)  I  permitted  them  to  follow,  very  dii- 
itrentflatutes  arid  precepts.  What  ftatutes  and  pre- 
cepts ?  The  cruel  rites  and  deteftable  practices  (2)  of 
idolatrous  nations,  of  the  worfliippers  of  Baal-peor, 
and  Moloch,  &c.  v.ho  burned  their  children,  and 
committed  a  thoufand  impurities  in  honour  of  thefe 
falfe  Gods.  Thefe  are  the  precepts  which  were  not 
good,  the  (liameful  and  fatal  obfervances,  to 
which  God  had  given  up  the  rebellious  Ifraelites, 
and  with  which  he  had  fuflered  them  to  pollute  them- 
felves. 

(l)  I permUtcdthcmUfol'o-M.  I  ha'je gt-ven  them,  inftead  of  F  permitted 
tlicni  to  follow;  I  ha-ue  poUutid  ihcm,  initcadof  I  let  them  pollute  thcmfelves; 
ioh<cb  it'etf  not  good ;  that  is,  which  were  deteftable.  Ali  thefe  fi.;ure:^  arc  f<* 
common  in  fcripturc,  that  they  cannot  (h<p  any  perfon  who  undcrftinds  He- 
brew but  a  little.     To  be  fure  A'lr-  Voltaire  is  not  in  this  cafe.     Ant. 

(z)  Of  idolatrous  nations.  We  adopt  this  explanation  a->  the  nnft  probable, 
and  the  moft  conformable  to  the  text  -,  it  is  followed  by  the  Chaldean  para- 
phraft,  by  South,  Wells,  the  learned  VitringajiScc.  WaterUnd  adopts  ic  :a 
liis  anfrt'cr  to  Tindal.     ^ut. 


t3o6  Letters     of 

AVe  know  that  fome  critlcks  has  given  a  different 
explanation  of  the  text,  and  we  do  not  pretend  either 
to  confute  or  exclude  it.  But  what  ever  fenfe  is  giv- 
en to  this  paflage,  it  is  clear  that  Ezekiel  did  not 
mean  to  contradict  Mofes,  vi^ith  whom  he  agrees. 
Vine*  that  he  could  not  contradift  him.,  without  con- 
tradicting himrelf,  which  I  fuppofe,  you  do  not  charge 
him  with. 

hi  pretended  formal  contradiBion,  then  between 
Ezekiel  and  Mofes,  is  nothing  but  a  mere  cavil, 
and  the  argument  which  you  draw  from  it,  in 
favour  of  toleration,    vanilhes   along  with  it. 

Thefe,  fir,  are  all  the  proofs  of  toleration,  which 
the  hiilory  of  our  judges  and  our  kings,  the  con- 
dud  and  writings  of  our  prophets,  could  fupply 
you  with.  We  have  omitted  none.  In  earneft,  do 
you  think  thefe  arguments  very  folid,  and  very  pro- 
per for  the  purpofe  of  recommending  toleration  to 
the  rulers  of  this  world  ?  We  doubt  of  it,  and  we 
•who  wifh  well  to  toleration,  and  to  whom  it  is  ne- 
ceffary,  will  tell  you  a  fecret,  that  we  think  it  as 
yet  exceedingly  ill  proved  in  your  two  chapter?. 
Alas  !  fir,  had  you  nothing  better  to  fay  ?  We 
think  you  are  not  nice  enough  in  the  choice  of  your 
proofs.  Obferve  this,  that  bad  reafons  take  offfrorn 
good  ones. 


T^Ve  are  with  the  higheft  efteem,  ^c* 


Hid' 


CERTAIN     Jews.  209 

LETTER     VI. 


Of  the  different  Jeivijli  ScSls.  Whether  they  provs 
that  toleration  vjas  carried  to  an  high  pitch  in  the 
Jeivijh  government.  Mijiakes  and  contr adiclions 
of  the  learned  critick, 

J_  T  feems  then,  fir,  that  you  find  fomething  praife- 
•worthy  in  the  ancient  Hebrews.  You  even  think 
that  you  may  propofe  them  as  models  to  the  polilhed 
nations  of  Europe.  The  favage  clan,  this  intolerant 
nation,  and  (i)  of  all  ancieitt  nations,  the  mcji  into- 
ierafit,  was  not  only  tolerant,  but  extremely  tole- 
rant. This  encomium  may  perhaps  appear  contra- 
didory  to  fome  readers.  It  is  therefore  proper  to 
fee  how  far  our  fathers  deferve  it. 

You  ground  it  on  the  great  oppofitlon  that  fub- 
fifted   between   the  fe6ts  which  they  tolerated.     In 
order  to   feel  the  whole  force,    and   folidity  of  this 
argument,  we  muft  firll  confider,  whether  you  give 
a  juft  account  of  the  opinions  of  thofe  fefts ;  fecond- 
ly,    whether,    fuppofing  your  account    juft,    they 
could  not   tolerate  each   other,    without  being  ex- 
tremely  tolerant  ;    and   laftly,   whether    they  really 
tolerate  each  other.    Such,  fir,  is  the  fcope  of  this  let- 
ter. It  will  appear  very  extraordinary,  if  after  having 
fo   often  abufed  our  anceftors  without  foundation, 
you  have  now  praifed   them   without  reafon. 
§    I.     Of  the  Pharifees. 

If  we  believe  you,  fir,  the  Pharifees  are  of  a  late 


(l)  0/  all  andent  nat'iom.  If  Mr.  Voltaire  upbraids  us  with  having  b«en 
»he  nioft  intolerant  nation  of  all  antiquity,  we  may  comfort  ourfelves,  for 
}»e  upbraids  Chriftians  with  having  been  to  this  time  the  moft  intolerant  of 
men.  To  this  pretended  intolerance  he  afcribes  the  cruel  and  bloody  per- 
fecutions  which  the  Chriftians  endured  under  Nero,  Domitian,  Maxiiulan, 
JDccius,  &c.  &c.  Roman  emperors  very  tolerant  indeed  !  Every  cue  hw 
he^rduf  their    mildncfs  and  husianity  !     Edit. 


*iro  Letters     of 

date,  and  their  fe£t  is  not  by  many  years  prior  to  (i) 
your  vulgar  era.  You  go  ftill  further  in  another 
place  ;  you  fix  the  period  of  their  origin,  and  vou 
fay,  that  they  arofe  (^2)  a  v:ry  Jhort  time  before  Jefus 
Chriji. 

It  is  difficult,  fir,  to  reconcile  this  aflertion  with 
the  writings  of  Jofephus,  who  reprefents  them  as  for- 
midable to  fovereigns,  even  in  the  time  of  the  high 
pried  Hircan,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  years 
before  Chrift.  It  is  hard  to  conceive,  that  a  fett 
which  was  formidable  to  fovereigns  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  before  Chriji^  and  who  even  then  ac- 
cording to  yourfeif,  wanted  to  condemn  the  high 
pried  to  imprifonment  (3)  and  v.hipping,  ihould 
have  arifen  but  a  little  time  before  fefus  ChriJl. 

You  add,  that  the  Pharifees  did  not  arife  Uill  the 
time  of  llilleU  Now  Hiliel  is  fuppofed  to  have  lived 
under  Herod  the  great,  and  you  make  him  yourfeif 
cotemporary  of  Gamaliel,  who  v/as  (4)  the  mafler  of 
Paul.  Do  you  think,  fir,  that  it  is  eafy  to  conceive, 
that  a  feft  which  was  numerous  and  powerful  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years  before  Chrifi,  could  have  for 
its  founder,  a  man  who  lived  under  Herod  the  great, 
a  cotemporary  of  Paid^s  niafter  ?  Perhaps  Hiliel  found- 
ed this  feft  when  he  was  in  his  nurfes  arms  !  Or  this 
Nedor  of  the  Ilebrevv's,  hved  much  longer  than  the 
Neftor  of  the  Greeks  ! 

But  let  us  drop  thefe  petty  contradictions  on  the 
oripin  of  the  Pharifees,  which  Caffaubon  thinks  was 
prior  to  the  vulgar  era,  by  two  hundred  years,  which 
Scaliger   places   (5)  under   the  MaccatDees,    which 

(i)  Tour -uul^-ir  era.   See  Philofoph.  Di<5lion.  and  Phi^of.  de  I'HiftoIre. 
(a)  ^  very  foort  time,  &c.  Sec  Philofoph.  Diolion.  Art.  Rcfurredion. 

(3)  And  •whipping.      Sec  Philof.    of    Hiftory.      hxX\s\t,  of  the   Jews /tnte 

Saul'      ^ut, 

(4)  The  ma fer  of  Paul-   See  Divflioil.  Pliilofoph-  i\rtic!c  RefurreHlon.  Aut. 

(5)  Under  the  Maccabees.  Scaligtr,Scrari()Us,  and  Drurius,  without  dar- 
iflrrtn  deterniiinc  any  thing,  believe  that  the  Pharifees  niayhav<;  arifen  from 
ti-.at  fociety  ot"  Jews,  who  in  the  time  of  the  M-.iccabees,  retired  into  the 
wi  derncf'.  to  avoid  pcrfccu^io^.  They  were  atfirft  called  AJideans,  and  af- 
terwards Pharifees,  that  \i,afcl>nraie  peoJ>le,  for  fo  tliey  really  were,  firft.  by 
their  haiiirations,  and  afterwards  by  their  attachment  to  their  rraditiont.their 
habit,  ihci;-  -ullcriticy,  (St^-.  Others  have  thought  that  the  name  of  Pharifees 


CERTAIN     Jews.-  aff 

others  believe  to  liave  been  as  far  back  as  Efdras,  ia 
fiiort,  of  which  all  the  learned  fpeak  with  uncertain- 
ty, and  which  you  determine  with  fo  much  prccifion 
and  (i)  confidence. 

Let  us  proceed  to  the  account  you  give  of  their 
doftrine.  You  fay  in  your  text,  that  they  believed  in 
fdte^  and  the  tranj'migration  of  fouls,  and  you  add  in 
a  note,  the  opinion  of  fate  is  ancient  and  univcrfal^ 
('tis  much  to  call  it  univerfal,)  /'/  is  airways  to  be fomvX 
in  Homer.  It  ivas  fuppofed  by  the -philofophcrs.  Yea 
want  to  make  people  confound  the  fytlem  of  the  Pha- 
rifees,  with  that  of  Homer,  and  the  philofophers. 
Yet  there  are  diiferences  in  thefe  fyilems,  which  you 
fhould  have  apprized  your  readers  of. 

Homer's /^//^  isfcperior  even  to  Jupiter  :  Fate  or- 
dains, Jupiter  muft  obey.  That  of  the  philofophers, 
or  at  lead  of  iome  philofophers,  is  a  concatenation  of 
caufes  and  etfecls  without  a  (inl:  caufe  :  or,  accordinor 
to  others,  a  phyfical  and  necelfary  concatenation  of 
caules  and  effects.  The  firfl  fyilem  is  an  abfurd 
piece  ofatheifm,  and  the  fecond  feems  to  take  from 
God  his  providence,  and  from  man  his  liberty. 

The  Pharifees  had  a  falvo  for  the  liberty  of  man. 
and  the  providence  of  God.  ^\l\\pv[  fatality,  if  we 
may  ufe  this  term  to  explain  their  fentitnents,  is  pro- 
vidence itfelf,  and  its  decrees.  *'  The  Pharifees," 
fays  Jofephus,  who  was  hin»felf  a  Pharifee,  and  con- 
fequently  well  inflirufted  in  their  opinion,  '*  believe 
"  that  the  decrees  of  providence  rule  all  natural  e- 
*'  vents,  but  they  do  not  take  from  men  free-will. 
'•  They  think  that  providence  which  a6ts  in  an  abfo- 
*'  lute  manner,  with  regard  to  natural  events,  mo- 
comes  from  the  word  Paras,  wl-.Ich  fijTnifies  a  reward,  heoaufe  they  fcrvfd 
C»o(i  •>vith  a  view  to  a  reward,  and  tiiac  they  maintained  in  oppofition  Co  the 
Sadducces,  future  rewards  and  punifhments.  Aut. 

(l)  An!  cvifiJ^nre  The  origin  of  the  Pharifees,  f;\ys  Eafnape,  is  not 
known,  nor  the  time  in  which  they  be;<an  to  appc-ar  It  is  hitter  to  i«infcf» 
that  the  real  ori,;"',!  of  this  feCi  is  ui.kii.-.wn,  tlMn  to  make  friiitlefs  enquiries 
after  it.  ,  See  the  hiilory  of  the  Jews,  Honk  U.  ch.   lo       Aut. 

A  Rai)bi,  who  .vrote  in  the  twelfth  century,  thouglu  tlicm  more  ancient. 
He  prct-nded  to  prove  t!>e  antiquity  of  the  Pharifcc*  I'v  a  rcj^ular  lucccffijO 
from  Adaia  to  thij  time.     Cbr'ijl. 


112  LeTTEIIS        of 

**  derates  its  power  in  acls  of  virtue  and  vice,  that 
**  they  may  be  free,  and  worthy  of  reward  or  pun- 
"  ifliment.'* 

Such  was  the  fatality  of  the  Pharifees,  fir  ;  this  is 
Hot  Ilomer's  fate,  nor  the  fatality  of  fome  phllofo-s 
phers,  Nor  is  it  (i)  yours.  That  the  Pharifeesj 
feems  to  us  to  have  (2)  nothing  blame-worthy  in  it. 

Nor  is  the  jnetempfychofis  of  the  Pharifees  the  fame 
with  that  of  the  admirable  fifteenth  book  of  Ovid's  Me- 
tamorphofcs.  The  Pharifees  believed,  that  the  fouls 
of  good  men  went  into  a  (late  of  the  higheft  happiriefsj 
from  whence  they  might  return  to  this  world,  and 
animate  other  human  bodies.  But  at  the  fame  time^ 
they  held  for  certain,  that  the  fouls  of  the  wicked 
were  flmt  up  for  ever  in  dark  dungeons,  where  they 
fuffered,  to  all  eternity,  punifiiments  proportioned  to 
their  crimes.  Thefe  ideas,  if  we  are  not  mill aken, 
do  not  fquare  well  with  the  Metertipfychoiu,  vjhich 
was  brought  from  the  Indies  by  Pythagoras  and  Jung  by 
Ovid. 

However,  as  the  opinions  of  the  Pharifees  did  not 
in  any  point  contradid:  the  law  of  MofevS,  we  do  not 
fee  that  an  high  degree  of  toleration  was  necelfary 
for  tolerating  them. 

(1)  Kor  is  if  yours.  See,  "ivith  fcfpecl  to  this,  the  articles  tfj.iinedes  Evi-ne' 
mens,  Deflinee,  Lihirte,  '^c.  of  ths  DiClion.  Philofoph,  The  author  in  thtfc 
maintains  an  abfolute  fate.  He  afferts  there,  that  every  ihinjr  is  n.-crjfary  in 
the  moral,  ai  well  as  the  natural  world.  That  a  man  has  no  more  liberty 
than  his  dog.  l"hat  our  will  is  necejfurily  determined  in  confequence  of  thofe 
idea*  whicli  prefcnt  themfelves  mctjfaiily  to  us,  &c.  /nd  if  you  enquire 
vhat  is  to  btcnme  of  liberty,  he  ariiwers  that  he  eloes  not  uudcrllund  you. 
And  if  you  afk  him,  how  can  divine  jiiftice  punlih  crimes  wliicl-  are  c:)ni* 
niitted  thro'  iiec*fiity,  he  tells  you,  that  fome  people  can  folve  this  difficulty, 
btit  that  he  cannot.  And  if  you  infitt,  he  adds,  "  I  haVe  nccejfatiiy  the  paf- 
"  Hon  of  writing  this  article,  and  you  have  thepaflion  to  condemn  me  We 
"  arc  equally  foolifh, equally  the  laughinj;  (lock  of  fate.  Thy  nature  is  to  do 
'•  evil,  mine  is  to  love  trufh  and  to  p.iblifli  it  in  fpite  of  thee."  This  ii,  t.  uly 
iiiftruftive  Ca'utary  dii>ilrine,  worthy  of  the  oracles  of  modern  pliiiofophy  ! 
Such  is  the  coniforrable  refult  of  all  their  enquiries,  and  the  happy  fruits  of 
their  labours  !  What  ignorant  arid  ftiipid  philofsphers  were  our  Pharifees  in 
comparifon  of  thefe  gentlemen  !    A-.it, 

(2)  Nothing  blamc-:iorthy  ill  it.  One  of  their  principles,  according  to  Jo- 
fcphus,  was,  that  man,  in"  order  to  do  good,  wants  the  alfillance  of  fate,  thaC 
ii,  of  providence,  and  of  it?  grace  Could  ihey  cSplaiJi  thcnif«lvc4  in  a  mora 
orthodox  way  !  Aut. 


CERTAIN     Jew  s.  2i^ 


J 


§    2.  Of  the  Effenes. 

Toleration  was  ftill  lefs  wanting  for  the  feci  of  the 
Effenes,  as  it  was  rather  a  religious  order,  than  a  feci 
of.hereticks.  It  was  an  alfociation  of  pious  and  good 
men,  whom  the  defire  of  dill  higher  perfection  had 
united.  They  were  taken  up  with  contemplation, 
or  with  agriculture,  and  other  ufeful  arts,  ?.nd  thus 
led  infolitude,a  blamelefs  innocent  life.  They  were 
zealous  worfliippers  of  the  God  of  our  fathers,  a?id 
altbo*  they  offered  no  facrifices  in  the  temple^  yet  they 
fent  thither  their  oblations.  They  highly  refpected 
the  legiflator,  and  his  name  was  among  them  in  the 
highelt  veneration.  They  looke^J  upon  thofe  as  blaf- 
phemers,  who  dared  to  fpeak  ill  of  him,  and,  (ob- 
ferve  this  was  no  toleration,)  they  put  them  to  deach 
without  mercy. 

It  is  true,  they  thought  that  after  this  life  the  fouls  of 
good  men  were  carried  beyond  the  ocean,  to  a  de- 
lightful place,  where  neither  the  piercing  colds  of 
winter,  nor  the  fcorching  heats  of  fummer  could  be 
felt;  and  that  the  fouls  of  the  wicked  were  (liut  up 
under  the  earth  in  a  dark  and  frozen  cave,  where 
they  endured  eternal  torments.  But  this  opinion, 
which  bears  fome  refemblance  to  that  of  the  Greeks, 
was  not  very  different  from  that  of  the  Pharifees, 
and  of  the  greatefl  part  of  the  Jews.  The  Eifenes 
agreed  with  them  as  to  the  fundamental  point,  future 
rev\^ards  and  punilhments,  and  differed  from  them  on- 
ly as  to  the  place.  Might  not  this  flight  diftinftion 
be  tolerated,  efpecially  in  men  who  refleded  a  luftre 
on  their  nation  (i)  by  virtues  which  extorted  admi- 
ration even  from  (2)  heathens. 

E  e 

(1)  By  virtues 's'c.  See  what  Jof^pluis  and  Philo  liaye  faid  of  tliem. 
Some  Cnriftians  hive  l>con  fo  (Iruck  by  it,  that  tiiey  wouid  willingly  have 
infcrted  them  as  members  of  the  primitive  church.  £./it. 

(2)  From  heathens.  See  Solinus,  ch.  38.  and  Pliny,  lib,  5.  Piny  ob- 
fcrves  with  Philo,  end  parhaps  after  him,"  that  the  Eflcncs  diflinguifhed 
themfclvcs  by  their  continence  and  difintereftednefb ;  that  tiiis  ex.rraordinary 
feiSl  lived  without  nion:y,  and  was  perpetuated  without  marriage.  'I'hoftf 
who  died  were  replaced  by  new  dilciples,  whom  a  diflike  to  the  world,  and 
a  dcfire  lo  lead  a  more  retired  and  virtu<ius  life,  hrcu<;ht  in  from  every  fide- 
FJfTTiigensfcIa  tt'ntoi:orbi^rj:tercie'.erairr.na,f.neuU'J<tmiii''y  omr.i  ■mncre  aiJi.ula, 


214  Letters     of 

Even  your  divines  are  not  agreed  on  the  place  of 
future  ( 1 )  rewards  and  punijfhments,  and  yet  they  to- 
lerate one  another.  And  that  famous  poet  among 
you,  who  took  it  into  his  head  to  place  hell  beyond 
the  fun,  in  a  fphere  particularly  appointed  for  this 
purpofe,  has  not  been  molefted,  as  far  as  we  know, 
for  lo  fingular  an  opinion.  Do  you  think,  fir,  that 
an  hl^b  degree  of  toleration  was  needful  for  this  for- 
bearance ? 

In  fliort,  to  fay  the  Eflenes  were  tolerated  by  the 
Jews,  therefore  the  Jew^s  were  extremely  tolerant,  is, 
we  think",   no  unanswerable  argument.     The  weak- 
nefs  of  it  appears  Itill   more,  when  we  place  along 
with   it  the  high  encomiums  given  to  the  Effenes  by 
Philo  and  Jofephus.     Would  thefe  two  learned  Jews 
have  extolled  fo  highly  an  heretical  fed  ? 
§   3.  Of  the  Sadducees. 
The  toleration  which  theSadducees  enjoyed,  might 
juftly  furprize  us  more, but  you  have  the  art  of  leffen- 
ing  the  furprize,  by  flriving  to  encreafe  it.     "  When 
"  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  you  fay,  became  a  re- 
"  ceived  opinion,  which  had  probably  its  rife  fo  ear- 
"  ly  as  the  Cabyloniih  captivity,  the  feft  of  the   Sad- 
"  ducees  continually  perfifted  in  denying  future  re- 
"  v/ards  and  puniihments.'* 

Morgan  the  deift,  had  already  afiferted  that  the 
Sadducees  were  only  the  remains  of  the  ancient  Jews, 
and  that  their  only  fault  was  perfifling,  according  to 
the  opinion  of  their  fathers,  to  rejed  the  new  doc- 
trine of  the  immortality  of  the  foul  and  of  a  future 
{late,  which  the  Babylonians  taught,  and  the  Jews 
had  learned  from  them  during  the  captivity.     If  you 

fme  pcciinid  In  diem  coh-venaruvt  iurba  lenaftUur,  large  frequeniariibus.,  qtios  -vita 
Jt£;i  ed  mores  eorumforturafit.Sius  agHat.  Ita  incredible  di£1u,  gtns  <xternaeji,  in 
^Lci  ncrno  najcitur.      Turn  Jccunda  illis  alitrum  fitie  frcniUntia  eji  !      Edit. 

(I)  Reivards  end  funijiments.  "  Divines,"  fays  Mr.  Voltaire,  "  lave 
«'  net  yet  determined  as  an  aitide  of  faiih,  whether  hell  is  in  the  centre  of 
"  thccaith,;isit  was  fi'rpoftd  to  be  in  the  pagan  thcolofy.  Some  (an  En- 
"  o!i{V,n;an,)  have  platid  it  in  the  fun,"  &.c.  On  this  we  will  ohierve  /» 
pp'i;\int,  that  wc  wonder  that  fo  will  infcinif d  a  chriftian  as  Mr.  Voltaire 
ceoild  thii.k  that  the  divirts  of  his  rttigicn  dtterir.iiie  aiiities  tf  "faith. 
Eda. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  215 

do  not  openly  embrace  this  critick's  opinion  here,  as 
you  do  in  other  places,  yet  we  can  eafily  fee  that  by 
thefe  words,  the  fed:  of  the  S.iddiicees  continuilly  per- 
fi/ied,  iffc.  you  would  give  us  to  underftand  that 
this  fed  arofe  long  before  the  captivity  of  Babylon. 
But  does  the  antiquity  of  the  Sadducees,  and  of  their 
opinions,  appear  to  you  to  be  an  argument,  why  they 
fhould  not  have  been  tolerated  ?  It  feems  to  us  to 
prove  the  contrary. 

You  add,  that  the  Sadducees  differed  much  more 
from  the  other  fews,  than  Protefiants  do  from  Papi/is, 
We  think  it  would  be  hard  to  prove  this,  efpecially 
according  to  your  principles.  As  far  as  we  can  un- 
derftand, effential  points,  and  fundamental  articles, 
divide  Proteftants  from  Papifts  ;  and  what  makes  a 
flill  flronger  irnpreffion  on  the  generahty  of  men, 
and  contributes  more  powerfully  to  make  thefe  di- 
vifions  eternal,  different  rites,  which  are  connecued 
with  their  belief,  feparate  them.  But  nothino;  of 
this  kind  diftinguifhed  the  Sadducees  from  the  Phci- 
rifees  and  the  other  Jews.  They  prayed  in  the  fame 
temple,  they  obferved  the  fame  rites,  and  followed 
the  fame  cultoms.  They  believed,  as  the  others  did, 
in  one  God,  his  providence,  his  avenging  juftice. 
Sec.  &c. 

It  is  true,  that  they  did  not  admit  future  rewards 
and  punilhments.  But  do  not  forget,  that  it  is  cer- 
tain  and  inconfefliblc,  that  Mofcs  did  not,  in  anv  place, 
promife  the  Jeivs  future  rewards  and  punijhments. 
That  the  great  Arnaud  fays  it  plainly  and  ftronzly,  in 
his  apology  for  (1)  Port-Royal,  and  that  the  learned 
bijhop  of  Glocejier  has  proved  it  clearly  in  his  divine 
legation  of  Mofcs  (2).  At  lead  you  fhould  not  for- 
get what  you  yourfelf  have  fald,  and  fo  often  repeat- 
ed, that  Mofcs  does  not  fay  one  word  that  can  have  the 
flightefi  relation  to  the  pun'fjjjments  (3)  of  a  future  Jiate, 

(i)  See  Treatife  of  Toleration,  article  of  the  extreme  toleration  of  tl  ^ 
Jews.     Aut. 

(a)  Legation  r.f  Maftt.     See  Philofoph.  DitSion.  Art.  Reli;;ion.  A  if. 

\l)  Of  afutuTc  i!au.     See  Philofoph.  Dldtiou    ariiclc  Hell.     Aut. 


2i6  Letters     of 

That  the  belief  of fpirits,  and  of  the  ifnmurtality  of  the 
foul,  zuere  points  imknoiun  to  the  ancient  yezus.  That 
thefe  doctrines  came  from  the  Egyptians,  the  Babyloni- 
ans and  Perfians,  and  that  they  formed  n^  part  of  {\) 
the  Jewijh  religion. 

"  The  Sadducees,  you  fay,  remained  in  commu- 
'*  nian  with  their  brethren;  high-priefts  too  were 
"  chofen  out  of  this  feet/'  What  is  there  furpriz- 
ing  in  this,  according  to  your  principles  ?  If  the  opi- 
nions which  the  Sadducees  difavowed  were  7ieiv,  if 
there  is  not  a  ijuord  faid  of  them  in  the  law,  if  thefe 
opinions  did  not  in  any  wife  confiitute  the  Jewifh  religi- 
on, they  therefore  were  not  effential  points  of  their 
faith.  The  Sadducees  therefore,  did  not  differ  from 
the  other  Jews,  ?nore  than  Fapifts  do  from  Protefiants. 
And  they  might  without  being  highly  tolerated,  re- 
main in  communion  with  their  brethren,  and  have 
high-priefts  chofen  out  of  their  fed. 

How  oddly  you  reafon,  fir !  You  want  to  fhew 
that  the  Jews  were  tolerant,  becaufe  they  tolerated 
the  Sadducees,  and  you  continually  tell  us,  that  the 
opinions  which  thefe  latter  rejeded,  did?iot  confiitute 
the  fewifh  religion.  You  would  have  us  be  furpriz- 
ed  at  feeing  high-priefts  chofen  out  of  their  led,  and 
you  repeat  this  continually,  that  the  high-piefl  at 
that  time  obtained  his  preferment  Jword  in  hand,  and 
made  his  way  to  the  fanduary  over  the  dead  bodies  (2) 
of  his  competitors.  Does  violence  infer  right  and  con- 
fen  t  ? 

As  for  us,  fir,  we  believe  and  can  prove,  that  the 
Sadducees  and  their  opinions  were  of  late  date,  that 
their  fedl:,  fo  far  from  being  prior  to  the  Babylo- 
nifli  captivity,  did  not  arife  'till  about  three  hun- 
dred years  after  it,  under  the  pontificate  of  Onias, 
that  Antigonus  and  Sadoc  were  the  founders  of  it, 
and  that  this  latter  gave  it  its  name.  That  the  Sad- 
ducees being  milled  by  ill-underftood  principles  of 

(l^   O/tbtJnviJb  Relijhn.     See  Philofophy  of  Hiflory- 
(2)   Of  bis  compiiitors.     iiee  Philoibphy  of  Hiflory,  article  of  the  Jews 
fincc  Paul.     Aut. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  217 

fpiritual  and  pure  love,  committed  great  errors  and 
denied  certain  truths,  the  belief  of  which  is  ufeful 
and  falutary  to  men,  and  which  have  been  handed 
down  to  us  by  refpedtable  traditions,  that  go  as  far 
back  as  the  origin  of  the  nation. 

But  if  you  alk  us  how  they  remained  in  commu- 
nion with  their  brethren,  altho'  they  held  thefe  er- 
rors, and  how  it  happened  that  fome  of  them  were 
high-priefts,  we  flrall  anfwer, 

id.  That  as  there  is  one  fort  of  toleration  which 
proceeds  from  confent  and  approbation,  there  is  alfo 
another  flowing  from  caution  and  neceffity.  And 
that  as  we  never  had  nor  could  have  the  former,  it  is 
not  fo  furprizing  as  you  think,  that  we  had  the  lat- 
ter. 

adly,  That  thefe  materialifts  were  more  reafonable 
and  lefs  dangerous,  than  thofe  of  our  times.  They 
refpecled  at  lead  the  leading  principles  of  the  efta- 
bliflied  religion.  There  are  two  barriers  which  flop 
corruption  among  men,  the  punifhments  of  this  life, 
and  thofe  of  the  next  ;  nov/  altho'  they  had  leveled 
one  of  thefe,  yet  they  took  care  to  preferve  the  other. 
And  the  fear  of  puniihment  here  below,  and  the  ex- 
pectation of  thofe  bleflings,  which  according  to 
them,  God  always  bcftows  on  his  faithful  fervants, 
were  flrong  curbs  to  the  paflions  of  men. 

3dly,  That  there  vv-as  a  time  when  the  Sadducees 
were  too  powerful  not  to  be  tolerated.  That  when 
they  became  afterwards  fewer  in  number,  and  lefs 
united,  they  carefully  concealed  their  opinions. 
That  as  they  did  not  differ  at  all  in  outward  appear- 
ance from  the  other  Jews,  and  were  fatisfied  it'  they 
could  feduce  the  rich  and  powerful,  whom  they  freed 
from  the  yoke  of  traditions,  they  never  held  forth 
in  the  colTee-houfes  of  Jeruialem,  and  never  attacked 
received  opinions  in  fcandalous  writings,  or  if  they 
did,  they  knew  how  to  publifh  them  under  the  bor- 
rowed names  of  Phenicians  and  Arabians.  That  for 
thefe  rcafons,  it  might  have  been  hard  to  convict 
them  legal! V. 


2i8  Letters     of 

4thly,  That  as  we  were  a  dependant  nation  on  the 
kings  of  Syria,  and  afterwards  on  the  Romans,  we 
had  not  always  the  power  of  eleding.  or,  rejecting 
an  high-priefl. 

5thly,  (Weigh  this  reafon  chiefly,  fir,)  That  the 
following  rights  which  are  both  civil  and  religious, 
of  going  to  the  temple,  of  offering  up  facrifices,  of 
rifing  to  facerdotal  and  pontifical  honours,  could  not 
be  taken  from  them  but  by  an  exprefs  law,  efpecial- 
ly  in  thofe  times  of  dependance  ;  and  that  altho' 
the  truths  which  they  denied,  were  always  believed 
thro*  our  nation,  and  plainly  implied  in  the  books  of 
the  law,  yet  they  are  not  in  any  part  of  it  clearly  laid 
down,  and  the  belief  of  them  was  no  where  exDrefs- 
ly  commanded  under  pain  of  being  cad  off  from  the 
body  of  the  people  ;  that  therefore,  it  cannot  appear 
extraordinary,  that  thefe  fedaries  fhculd  have  been 
tolerated  for  a  time. 

§   4.    Whether  thofe  feds  tolerated  07ic  another  ? 

But  did  thofe  fects  which,  efpecially  according  to 
your  principles,  ought  to  have  tolerated  one  another, 
really  do  fo  ?  You  believe  it,  fir,  and  aflert  it,  but  all 
our  records  unanimoufly  contradict  it. 

As  foon  as  the  two  principal  fefts  arofe,  difputes 
and  divifions  broke  out.  Both  parties  in  their  turn, 
courted  the  favour  of  princes,  in  order  to  make  ufe 
of  their  authority  to  crulh  their  adverfaries.  Hircan, 
gained  over  by  the  Sadducees,  perfecutcs  the  Phari- 
fees  without  mercy  ;  he  imprifcns  fome  of  them, 
puts  others  to  death,  forces  the  greateft  part  of  them 
to  take  refuge  in  deferts,  and  makes  it  capital  to  fol- 
low their  inllitutions.  Arifiobulus,  the  fon  of  Hir- 
can, inherits  his  fathers  hatred  for  them,  and  carries 
on  a  fierce  war  ugainll  them.  And  Alexander,  the 
brother  of  Arillobulus,  perfecutes  them  even  unto 
death.  The  widow  of  Alexander  changes  fides  by 
his  advice,  and  im.nediately  the  Pharifees  having  got 
the  upper  hand  in  this  new  reign,  pcrfecute  the  Sad- 
ducees in  their  turn,  and  repay  evil  for  evil.  Sad- 
duceifm  then  becomes  fo   odious,  that  its  followers 


eERTAiN     Jews.  219 

are  forced  to  yield.  They  give  up  (late  affairs,  or 
dare  no  longer  vote  in  councils  and  trials,  but  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  their  adverfaries.  In  (hort,  thefe 
feftaries,  fometimes  opprcfled,  and  fometimes  op- 
preflbrs,  ceafe  not  to  perfecute  each  other  with  the 
utmoft  fury,  and  thefe  animohties  are  perpetuated 
even  until  the  total  ruin  of  the  nation,  which  thev 
accelerated.  "  This  multiplicity  of  fefts,  fays  a 
*'  learned  Proteftant,  was  one  of  the  principal  caufes 
"  of  the  misfortunes  of  Judea.  That  hatred  which 
"  length  of  time  and  fuffcrings,  muft  have  allayed, 
"  ftill  fubfifted  ;  even  war  did  net  unite  men,  and 
"  they  chofe  rather  to  be  deftroyed  by  their  di- 
*'  vifions,  than  to  fave  their  country  by  unanimoully 
"  oppofmg  the  enemy.'* 

Thus,  fir,  thofe  feds  tolerated  each  other.  Do  you 
propofe  this  example  to  modern  nations  ?  And  is  it 
upon  this  conduct,  that  you  ground  thofe  encomi- 
ums of  the  higheft  toleration,  which  you  give  to  our 
fathers?  You  muft  allow,  that  there  is  as  little  juf- 
tice  in  your  praife,  as  in  your  cenfure,  for  you  con- 
demn the  law  which  was  wife,  altho'  fevere,  and  you 
praife  the  practices  of  the  people,  which  were  not 
wife  at  all. 

CONCLUSION. 
Well,  fir,  do  you  flill  think  that  the  examples 
which  you  produce  in  favour  of  toleration,  are  very 
proper  to  recommend  it  to  your  rulers  ?  In  order  to 
make  them  adopt  it,  you  give  them  ancient  nations 
for  models,  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  Romans,  &c. 
And  thefe  nations,  fo  tolerant  according  to  you, 
were  according  to  yourfelf  fo  intolerant,  that  the  phi- 
lofophers  and  the  initiated,  were  every  where  under 
the  neccj/ity  of  concealing  their  opinions  and  tenets 
luith  tJje  greateji  circumfpecfion.  And  the  tolerant  E- 
gyptians,  thro'  a  principle,  of  religious  intolerance, 
carried  on  bloody  wars  againfl:  each  other.  x\nd  the 
Greeks  who,  according  to  you,  never  perfc exited  any 
ine  but  Socrates  J  banifhed,  profcribed,  imprifoned, 
put  to  death,  thofe  who  in  their  convcrfation  or  writ- 


C20  Lettersof 

ings.  attacked  the  eftabliflied  worfliip,  or  ftrove  to 
introduce  a  new  one.  And  the  Romans,  who  accord- 
ing to  you,  never  pcrfccuted  any  one.,  and  adopted  any 
gods,  forbad  worfhipping  flrange  gods,  demoliflied 
their  temples,  fcattered  their  worfhippers,  fcourged 
philofophers,  drove  the  jews  into  exile,  and  fhed  ri- 
vers of  chriflian  blood,  &;c. 

From  thefe  nations  you  pafs  to  the  Jews.  But 
what  fa6ls  do  you  produce  ?  Fa£ts  doubtful  or  un- 
true, or  prefented  under  falfe  afpcfts,  or  foreign  to 
the  queflion,  which  either  prove  nothing,  or  make 
againft  yourfelf.  Fads  which  happened  in  times  of 
confufion  and  anarchy,  and  dependance,  and  which 
were  fo  far  from  having  had  any  confequences  fa- 
vourable to  the  nation,  that  they  haftened  its  ruin. 
Can  thefe  truly  be  called  proofs  ?  And  would  not  one 
be  apt  to  think,  that  inflead  of  inviting  the  rulers  to 
the  exercife  of  toleration,  your  intention  is  to  make 
them  dread  it  ? 

Pray,  fir,  leave  the  nations  of  antiquity  at  refl. 
Egyptians,  Greeks,  Romans,  &c.  They  all  held  in- 
tolerant principles,  they  all,  either  thro'  fanaticifm, 
or  political  views,  were  fometimes  intolerant. 

But  above  all  things  meddle  not  with  the  Jews,  or 
learn  their  hidory  better.  Both  your  (i)  country- 
men and  (2)  ftrangers,  have  feveral  times  charged 
you  with  having  but  a  fuperficial  knowledge  of  it. 
Learn  it  better,  f,r,  or  never  fpeak  of  it. 

We  have  faid  it,  and  muft  now  repeat  it  at  the 
clofe.  We  are  fcarcelv  tolerated  in  mod  countries, 
and  have  no  defign  in  this  work,  to  attack  toleration. 
We  only  meant  to  fhew  you,  that  you  have  given 
bad  proofs  of  it  in  your  two  chapters.  Have  we  not 
kept  our  word?  Be  yourfelf  the  Judge. 

We  remain,  &:c.  &c. 

fl")  Tour  countrymen-  See  Dcfenfe  ties  I.ivres  de  I'ancien  Tcftamcnt.  Re- 
futation lie  quGjqiiesarticksdu  Diflionaire  Philof'  j  hique.  Supplcmcrt  a  la 
I'hilofnphic  dc  rhifioiie,  &c.    Edit, 

(2)  St,iii:_^ns.  See  Wnrlurton,  and  lately  the  a-athors  of  t!ic  Mor.tlily 
Review,  thole  learned  men,  in  the  j/lucc  quoted  by  the  I'ortugucze  Jtw?  \i.x- 
tcr  4  h- cud  c!li.'\viierf,    I-di-t.  , 


CERTAIN      J    E    ty'    S.  221(., 

LETTER.       VII. 

in  which  the  quejTion  is  difcupd,  ivhethcr  it  was  im- 
pojjiole  that  Jo  many  women,  and  fo  much  cattle, 
could  be  found  in  the  country  of  the  Madianitesy  as 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Numbers  mentions. 


Wi 


cc 

C4 


E  have  jud  read,  fir,  that  part  of  your  Trea- 
tlfe  on  Toleration,  in  which  you  fpeaic  of  the  vidory, 
which  our  fathers  gained  over  the  Madianites. 

You  fay,  "  that  the  vigors  found  in  the  camp  of 
the  vanquiflied,  fix  hundred  and  feventy-five  thou- 
fand  fae-p,  fevejity-two  thouland  bullocks,  fixty- 
one  thoufand  afles,  and  thirry-two  thoufand  girJs.'* 
You  <idd  a  note  to  this  text  in  which  you  fav, 
Madian  was  not  comprized  in  the  land  of  promife. 
It  is  a  fwiall  fivirt  of  Iduma^n,  in  Arabia  Petrsea, 
"  it  begins  towards  the  north,  at  the  torrent  of  Ar- 
*'  non,  and  ends  at  the  torrent  of  Z?^i:ed,  in  the 
"  midil  of  the  rocks,  and  upon  the  eaftcrn  (liore  of 
"  the  lake  of  Afphaltis.  This  country  is  now  inha- 
"  bitcd  by  a  fmall  clan  of  Arabians.  It  may  contain 
"  eight  leagues  in  length,  and  fomewhat  lefs  in 
«  breadth.'' 

This  oppofition  between  fo  great  a  number  of  girls 
and  cattle,  and  the  fmall  extent  which  you  give  to 
this  country,  is  probably  brought  in  with  iome  vievr. 
You  meant,  it  is  Hkely,  to  ridicule  this  ftory,  and 
confequently  the  book  which  contains  it.  There  is 
another  writer  too,  who  thinks  as  you  do,  ( i )  or  is 
perhaps  the  fame  with  you,  who  has  tlie  fame  aim. 
He  aHures  us,  that  jnany  people  doubt  cfthisficl,  and 
a  third  bolder  than  the  red,  declares  that  he  thinks 
it  (2)  quite  abjurd,    (3)  As  you  repeat  this  difficulty 

F  f  ' 

(O   Or   h  f>erh3ps  tb:  fami  iv!tL  you.     It  i<  Mr.  Volfalre   himfelf.  In  hij 
Phi'ofophynf  Hiftory.     EJit. 

U)  As  you  nj^eal  iLij  d:Jf:cutty  f,  o/Un, .  l:fc.  It  is  extraordinary  that  writers 


Letters     of 


fo  often,  and  with  fo  much  confidence,  it  is  probable 
that  you  think  it  extremely  embarrailing.  Let  us 
look  into  it,  and  fee  whether  this  account  is  fo  incre- 
dible and  abfurd  as  you  think  it. 

§  I .  Whether  the  author  of  the  book  of  Numbers  has 
afferted  that  the'  Ifraelites  found  all  ihefe  ivonun  and 
cattle  in  the  camp  of  the  Madianhes. 

'  Let  us  be  fure  nrft,  for  one  fliould  always  begin  by 
this  with  people  of  your  ftamp,  that  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Numbers  really  ailerts  what  you  fay. 

Where  did  our  Hebrews  find  thefe  girls  and  cat- 
tle, the  number  of  which  aftonifnes  you  ?  In  the  camp 
cf  the  Madianites^  you  anfwer.  ■  Thirty-two  thouiand 
girls,  feventy-two  thoufand  o^Qn^  fixty-one  thcufand 
aifes  in  a  camp  !  We  mull  allow  that  fuch  a  thing  is 
very  improbable.  When  men  are  going  to  attack 
a  formidable  enemy,  they  do  not  generally  drag  after 
them  fuch  a  cumberfome  train. 

But  as  you  propofed  to  criticife  this  recital,  you 
fiiould  at  lead  have  read  it  with  fome  care.  Is  it  faid 
in  it  that  thefe  thirty-two  thoufand  girls,  and  all  this 
cattle  were  found  in  a  camp  ?  No,  fir,  (i)  we  fee  on 
the  contrary,  the  victorious  Hebrews  fpreading 
themfelves  thro'  the  country,  carrying  off  women, 
cattle,  &c.  he.  and  after  returning  to  the  legiflator, 
and  taking  an  account  of  their  fpoils,  they  find  them 
to  amount  to  the  articles  mentioned  by  the  facred 
writers.  Thus  thefe  women  and  cattle  were  not.  ta- 
ken out  of  the  camp  of  the  Madianites,  but  out  of  the 
whole  country  around,  therefore  the  truly  abfurd 
circumftance  o^fnding  them  in  the  camp^  mufl:  not  be 
imputed  to  Mofes  who  does  not  aflert  it,  but  to  the 
criticks  who  make  him  fay  it.  They  imagined  it, 
ihey  wrote  it,  and  coolly  deliver  it  to  their  readers. 
Therefore  the  ridicule  of  it  muft  fall  on  them  and 
them  only. 

whofct  up  for  learning,  fhouH  ptrfift  obflinatcly  in  fo  frivolcu'?  an  objec- 
tion.    The  author  whom  we  anfwer  here,  has  rcp-atcd  it  four  or  five  tinn-s 
for  his  part.     He   might  I  think   have  been  more  fparingof  bis  paper,  and 
more  tender  iif  his  reaclers.      Occ'Jit  crambercpctita-       Edit. 
(I)  IVcftton  tbc  ccnirary,  &c.  See  Number,  ch.  31.     ^^t. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  223 

Another  of  thofe  writers  thinks  proper,  to  place 
thefe  women  and  cattle  ma  village.  Thus  thefe  cri- 
ticks  agree,  one  fays  a  camp,  the  other,  a  village^ 
But  pray  gentlemen  leave  them  where  Mofes  put 
them.  We  fee  that  you  are  draining  hard  for  a  joke. 
But  thefe  jokes,  which  are  founded  in  error,  do  not 
become  a  philofopher. 

§  2.  Whether  it  is  impojfible  that  there  JJjould  have 
been  found  thirty-two  thoiifand  girls  in  a  country,  eight 
leagues  long  and  not  quite  fo  broad. 

Well,  you  will  fay,  we  give  up  the  point.  Thefb 
thirty-two  thoufand  girls  were  found  neither  in  the 
village  nor  the  camp,  and  to  own  the  truth,  Mofes 
never  aflerted  thefe  abfurdities  which  we  afcribed  to 
him,  merely  to  amufe  our  readers.  But  ftill  is  it  not 
an  abfurdity  to  fay,  that  fo  many  girls  could  be  found 
in  a  country  eight  leagues  long,  and  not  quite  fo 
broad  ? 

I  (hall  grant  for  a  moment  that  your  furvey  is  juH:, 
and  that  the  country  of  Madian  had  the  extent  you 
fay.  Wouldit  beimpoffible,  even  according  to  this 
hypothefis,  that  thirty-two  thoufand  girls  fhould  have 
been  found  in  it  ?  If  this  number  feems  incredible,  it 
n\ufl;  be  doubtlefs,becaufeit  fuppofes  too  many  inha- 
bitants for  fo  fmall  a  country.  Let  us  then  form 
a  calculation. 

Thirty-two  thoufand  girls,  fuppofe  about  the  fame 
number  of  boys.  There  would  have  been  then  fixty- 
four  thoufand  young  perfons  of  both  fexes,  (i)  which 
mud  be  reckoned  from  the  birth,  to  the  age  of  matri- 
mony. Thefe  young  perfons,  according  to  the  com- 
mon computation,  mud  have  amounted  to  at  lead 
(2)  half   the  nation.     If  therefore  we  compute  the 

(l)  Which  mufi  h:  re:lonei,  8:c.  The  Hebrew  te"t  Is  cl.'far  v.'ith  regard  to 
this,  and  tiie  Vulgate  fays  exprrtfsly,  Pueltas  auUm  et  omnis  fusminat  I'irginc, 
rcrcrvate  vohis.     See  Book  of  Numbers,  ch.  31.     jiut. 

(a)  Half  the  nation.  In  the  former  edition  the  fuppolltion  wa«  one  third  ; 
hut  accordipg  to  the  common  eftimation,  it  amounts  to  at  leafl  half  The"-?- 
fore  too  great  a  concefllon  was  given  to  the  learned  critick.  Gencro'  ty  is 
laudable,  hut  truth  nxuft  not  he  violated.  The  author  of  the  Defence  01  tl-.e 
Booksof  the  Old  reftament  follows  the  computation  here  given.  It  is  the 
Wore  probable,  vith  regard  to  tliofc  dldant  iHricds,  becaufa  the  obfiarles 
which  now  prsvsr.t  the  frui:fulnefs  of  inarriages  were  thtn  ur.Lr.cwn.    JJiin. 


2  24  Letters     OF 

number  of  the  nation,  according  to  the  young  people 
amongd  them,  we  need  only  multiply  fixty-four 
thoufand  by  two,  which  gives  (i)  the  fum  total  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thoufand  perfons.  Do- 
you  think,  fir,  tliat  a  country  eight  leagues  long,  and 
of  nearly  the  fame  breadth,  cannot  fupport  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  thoufand  inhabitants  ? 

A  country  of  this  extent  muft  contain  about  two 
hundred  and  forty-eight  thoufand  acres  of  land,  and 
an  acre  of  good  ground  can  maintain  four  perfons  ; 
even  if  we  limit  it  (2)  to  three,  forty-three  thoufand 
acres,  would  have  been  more  than  fufficient  to  main- 
tain the  one  hundred  and  twenty  eight  thoufand 
Madianites.  Let  us  add,  if  you  pleafe,  fifteen  thou- 
fand acres,  as  we  may  luppofe  that  the  lands  of  Ma- 
dian  did  not  yield  crops  annually,  and  that  it  was 
neceifary  to  leave  the  third  part  of  them  fallow  eve- 
ry year.  We  fhall  then  have  in  all,  but  fifty-eight 
thoufand  acres  employed  in  the  fupport  of  the  inha- 


(i)  The  fum  total  of ,  Scc.  It  Is  remarkable  tJiat  Mofes  fent,  to  conquer  the 
J,Iadianites  with  their  whole  country,  hut  twelve  thoufand  men.  Had  the 
enemy  hccn  twice  an  ftrong,  (which  is  not  dear,)  it  would  not  follow  that 
thisre  were  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thoufand  inhabitants  in  the  coun- 
try, reckoning  with  Mr  Voltaire,  a  foldicr  for  every  five  perfons.  If  then 
v/c  v/cre  to  judge  nf  the  Madianitcs  according  to  this  view,  we  have  rather 
increafeJ  than  diniiniihed  their  number.     Aut. 

(a)  To  three.  It  was  probably,  according  to  this  eft'mate,  that  in  many 
diltributions  of  land,  made  not  only  under  the  kings  of  Rome,  but  four  hun- 
«ired  years  after  its  foundation,  every  citizen  or  planter  got  but  two  acres  of 
ground  ;  it  was  fuppofed  that  fuch  piecci  wera  fuificicnt  to  fuppsrt  th«m  and 
thtJr  families,  and  the  planters  mult  have  thought  fo  too,  or  they  would  not 
have  accepted  them  to  go  and  ftarve  far  from  home.  See  Dienifius  Hali- 
carnaff.nfis,  l.ivy.  &c.  And  Colluniella  informs  us,  that  four  acres  of  land 
niade  up  th«  whole  ellate  of  the  famous  dictator  Quiniius  Cincinnatus. 
"Would  it  be  unr  alonahU'  to  fuppofe  tiiat  the  dilator's  family,  his  w  fe, 
child.en,  flave.s.  amounted  to  t^velvc  perfons,  and  to  allow  fix  for  the  famiir  s 
of  thofe  ;  1  n  ers  whom  we  mentioned  .'  It  was  an  eftabliihed  cuftoni  in  thefc 
diiliibutions  of  land,  to  give  the  preference  to  fathers  of  fan)ilies  who  had 
many  children       Aiit. 

'i'l.e  tj-iiL.IIitor  of  thifc  letters  muft  obfcrve,  that  the  French  word  atfcrt 
(whicti  IS  often  ufed  in  thii  calcuiarioii,  and  cannot  be  rendered  by  any  fin- 
g!e  wor.l  in  our  language,)  is  a  mcaiure  of  land  contaimug  one  hundred 
.  perches  uiuare  of  cightccB  feet  each.  He  ha»  been  obliged  to  Mfe  the  word 
.  acre,  altho'  acre  in  Frcrjch  ii  equal  to  un  arpcnt  Is'  Jt//.-/,  a  mcalurc  of  land,  con- 
taining f<jrty  perches  in  len;^th,  and  four  in  breadth,  llowcvtr  it  is  not  to 
be  douijted,  but  the  calculation  in  the  tranllaticn  will  anlwcr  as  well  as  ia 
the  oil^iiul,  uutwitlilUuUiiig  ihcfc  I'mail  variikticns. 


e    E-fe  T    A    I    N     J    E    V    S.  225 

bitants.  Is  it  inconceivable,  that  out  of  two  hundred 
and  forty-eight  thouland  acres,  there  fliould  be  found 
fifty-eight  tlioufand  of  common  fertility  ?  Therefore, 
thirty-two  thoufand  girls  do  not  necellarily  imply, 
that  there  were  too  many  inhabitants  for  a  country 
of  this  extent. 

To  theie  proofs  by  calculation,  let  us  add  exam- 
ples. Such  a  number  of  inhabitants^  you  fay,  in  fo 
fniall  a  country.  But  do  you  forget,  or  pretend  to 
(i)  deny  tiie  population  of  Egypt,  which  is  flill 
more  aftonifliing  in  proportion,  and  yet  atteflied  by 
fo  many  writers  ?  The  immenfe  population  of  Judea, 
even  under  the  Afmonean  kings,  and  under  the  He- 
rods,  which  is  acknowledged  even  by  heathen  wri- 
ters ?  That  of  Greece,  and  particularly  of  Attica,  a 
country  of  fmall  extent,  dry,  mountainous,  ftony, 
and  yet  very  populous  ?  And  laftly,  that  of  Rome, 
under  Servius,  that  is  at  a  period,  when  the  Roman 
ilate,  which  did  not  extend  to  more  than  eight 
leagues  in  length  or  breadth,  fupported  even  then, 
more  than  (2)  two  hundred  thoufand  fouls  ?  Will 
you  plead  the  falfity  of  all  thofe  fa6ls,  and  in  order 
to  invalidate  one  inftance  in  facred,  will  you  deny  fo 
many  other  fads  in  profane  hiftory  ?  How  many 
provinces  are  there  even  novr  .'n  China,  England, 
Plunders,  &c.  of  the  fame  dimenfions,  which  fup- 
port  more  than  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thou- 
fand inhabitants. 

You  fay  yourfelf,  fir,  that  it  is  an  undoubted facf^ 
that  the  Roman  Jiate  until  the  year  400  of  its  founda- 
tion^ extended  only  eight  leagues  i?i  length  or  breadth. 
Do  you  think  that  this  country  had  not  then  one 

(i)  To  Jiiiy,  He  does  really  deny  it.  But  notwithftandino;,  the  numerous 
and  vsft  caves  cut  in  mountains,  thofs  fubterranenus  aqucduiits  which  paJTed 
thro*  tlieivi,  to  convey  the  fertilizing  waters  of  the  rivtr,  thofe  canals,  thofe 
immenfe  lakes. «3ug  by  men,  fo  many  mighty  monuments  that  dill  fubfift, 
and  fv>"n  the  ruins  with  which  Egypt  is  covered,  from  the  fea  to  the  cata- 
racts, cvidciuly  prove  a  population,  if  not  fo  great  as  the  ancients  reprcfcnt, 
yet  far  shove  thofe  little  iiieas  which  this  author  has  formed  to  hinilelf,  and 
•which  he  wifhts  to  indil  into  his  readers.      Edit. 

(z)  Tiv.t  hunJrtd  thoufand fntils.  'I'hc  number  mufl  hav«  been  greater  ac- 
cording to  ch<;  account  taken  ia  this  king's  leign.     See  liivy,  &c.    Edit. 


i2(j  Letters 


0  r 


fcundred  and  twenty-eight  thoufand  inhabitants  ?  If 
we  recoUedt  the  feveral  numberings  of  the  people, 
the  armies  that  were  raifed,  the  nations  that  were 
conquered,  the  new  tribes  that  were  added  to  the  old 
ones,  &c.  from  the  reign  of  Servius,  until  the  era  of 
which  you  fpeak,  we  Ihall  be  convinced  that  this 
country,  eight  leagues  in  length  and  breadth,  con- 
tained many  more  inhabitants  than  we  fuppofe  were 
in  the  country  of  the  Madianites.  And  you  cannot 
fay,  that  the  lands  about  Rome,  were  much  more 
fruitful  than  that  of  the  Madianites,  for  you  ailert, 
that  the  land  about  Rome  was  always  barren.  One 
hundred  and  twenty-eight  thoufand  perfons,  and  more, 
may  therefore  live  in  a  country  eight  leagues  in 
length  and  breadth,  allowing  the  ground  to  be  of 
common  goodnefs.  This  is  an  acknov/ledgement 
which  you  cannot  retra^,  without  cantradiding 
yourfelf. 

§  3.  Whether  it  is  incredible  that  the  cattle  which  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Numbers  enumerates,  could  fubfijl 
in  the  country  of  the  Madianites, 

But  you  will  fay,  fir,  could  a  country  extending 
eight  leagues  in  length  and  breadth,  fupport  with  fo 
many  inhabitants,  iuch  a  quantity  of  cattle  as  is  menr 
tioned  in  the  book  of  Numbers. 

We  fliall  not  look  far  back  or  far  diflant,  for  in- 
ftances,  to  (hew  that  an  equal  or  perhaps  lefs  (pace 
of  ground,  may  fupport  fuch  a  quantity  of  cattle. 
England  alone,  will  fupply  us  with  many  fuch  ex- 
amples. Let  us  produce  a  few  out  of  an  author  of 
reputation.  Sir  John  Nichols,  a  writer  very  well 
verfed  in  rural  oeconomy,  informs  us,  that  Dorfet- 
fhire  fupports,  befides  other  cattle,  above  five  hun- 
dred thoufand  flieepin  a  fpaceof  four  leagues  in  dia- 
meter. He  fpeaks  of  another  place  too,  of  fmallei- 
extent,  and  marfhy  ground,  where  may  be  found 
from  four  to  five  hundred  thoufand  flieep.  And 
laftly,  he  informs  us  that  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Dorchefter,  he  reckoned  fix  hundred  thoufand  in 
the  fpace  of  two  leagues.     Is  not  this  number  grea- 


CERTAIN    Jew*.  227 

ter  in  proportion,  than  fix  hundred  and  feventy-five 
thoufand  flieep,  feventy-two  thoufand  oxen,  &c.  fup- 
ported  in  a  country  eight  leagues  fquare  ?  We  think 
that  your  own  country  might  fupply  you  with  ma- 
liy  fuch  inftances,  and  if  they  are  uncommon,  we 
could  readily  tell  you  the  reafon  of  it. 

However  it  be,  fuch  of  your  countrymen  as  have 
wrote  on  agriculture,  lay  down  principles  which  are 
equally  favourable  to  our  way  of  thinking.  They 
tell  us,  that  an  acre  of  land  can  fupport  three  oxen. 
Therefore  twenty-four  thoufand  acres,  would  fuffice 
for  feventy-two  thoufand  oxen,  and  ten  thoufand 
one  hundred  and  fevcnty  acres,  for  feventy-one  thou- 
fand afles,  even  fuppofing  that  an  afs  eats  half  as 
much  as  an  ox.  According  to  the  fame  writers,  an 
acre  of  land,  can  fupport  twelve  (heep,  therefore,  fif- 
ty-eight thoufand  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres,  would 
fuffice  for  fix  hundred  and  feventy-five  thoufand 
ftieep.  Put  thefe  fums  together  and  you  will  find, 
that  ninety  thoufand  four  hundred  and  twenty  acres, 
would  be  fufficient  for  the  whole  flock  of  cattle. 
And  if  you  add  to  this  the  fifty-eight  thoufand  acres 
which  were  referved  for  the  fupport  of  the  inhabi- 
tants, you  will  perceive  that  the  fum  of  one  hun- 
dred and  forty. eight  thoufand  four  hundred  and 
twenty  acres  only,  was  employed  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  all  together.  Now  we  afk  you,  fir,  was  it 
impoflible  that  out  of  two  hundred  and  forty-eight 
thouTand  acres,  of  which  the  country  of  the  Madia- 
nites  confifted,  there  fliould  be  one  hundred  and  for- 
ty-eight thoufand  four  hundred  and  twenty  which 
were  fit  for  pallure  or  tillage  ?  And  may  we  not 
fairly  conclude  from  this,  that  it  is  no  way  incredi- 
ble that  this  country  fupported  fo  many  men  and 
cattle  as  Mofes  fays,  and  that  his  account  cannot  ap- 
pear abiurd  to  any,  except  thofe  who  are  unacquaint- 
ed with  the  refources  of  ancient  or  modern  agricul- 
ture ? 

Thefe  calculations  are  confirmed  by  an  unanfwer- 
able  example,  efpecially  to  you,  it  is  that  of  your 


228  Letters     of 

Romans,  in  the  year  400  of  the  foundation  of  Roine?'; 
as  numerous  as  the  Madianites,  and  holding  the 
fame  quantity  of  land,  they  certainly  had  fiocka. 
As  they  were  both  good  farmers  and  brave  foldicrs, 
they  probably  had  great  flocks  of  (heep.  You  can- 
not fuppofe  that  they  fent  them  tograzewith  their 
neighbours.  Eight  leagues  fquare  fufTiced  then  for 
them  and  their  cattle.  And  why  could  not  an  equal 
quantity,  be  fufticient  for  the  Madianites  and  their 
cattle  ? 

§  4 .   Advantages  -which  have  not  been  taken  in  the: 
foregoing  calculations. 

You  fee,  fir,  that  we  do  nof'at  all  exaggerate. 
We  are  very  far  from  having  availed  ourfelvcs  of  ev- 
ery advantage  in  the  foregoing  calculations. 

I  ft.  Out  of  the  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  thou- 
fand  acres,  of  which  the  country  of  the  Madianites 
confifts,  we  have  applied  only  one  hundred  and  for- 
ty-eight thoufand  four  hundred  and  twenty  lor  the 
food  of  man  and  beads.  We  leave  therefore  about 
one  hundred  thoufand  unapplied.  Perhaps  we  might 
in  cafe  of  need,  have  allotted  fome  thoufands  cl  aci"es 
more,  which  might  have  fupplied  at  leaft  fome  kind 
of  pafturage. 

2dly,  We  may  eflimate,  according  to  the  author 
des  recherches  fur  la  population  de  I'Auvei'g^ie  Iff  du 
Lyonnois,  Iffc.  the  annual  confumptlon  of  each  per- 
fon  upon  an  average,  to  twenty  four  bufliels  of 
corn.  Therefore  four  times  this  quantity,  was  fuf- 
ficient  to  maintain  four  Madianites,  efpecially  if  we 
add  to  it,  the  milk  and  flelh  of  their  great  flocks. 
They  lived  in  an  hot  climate  too,  which  inclines 
men  to  fobriety,  and  makes  them  keep  more  frugal 
tables,  which  in  ancient  times  was  the  cuftom. 
Now,  if  we  fuppofe,  that  every  acre  yielded  ninety- 
fix  bufhels  of  corn,  this  certainly  is  not  allowing 
it  an  uncommon  degree  of  fertility.  If  you  lived 
nearer  your  capital,  you   might  obferve  a  greater 


CERTAIN     Jews.  229 

fertility  ( i )  in  the  environs  of  it.  And  yet,  we  have 
confined  our  calculation,  to  three  perfons  to  the 
acre. 

Add  to  this,  that  the  fame  grounds  which  ferve 
for  the  fupport  of  man,  may  fupply  cattle  with  paf- 
turage  and  fodder. 

3dly,  We  have  eftimated  the  feeding  of  an  afs, 
to  be  equal  to  half  of  that  of  an  ox.  But  (2)  one 
of  your  mod  celebrated  v/riters,  in  the  eloquent  en- 
comium he  gives  to  the  afs,  judiciouily  obferves, 
that  one  of  the  excellent  qualities  of  this  ufeful 
quadruped,  is  his  frugality.  He  fays  the  afs  is  ea- 
fily  fupported,  and  that  the  driefl  herbs,  and  mofl 
defpifed  by  other  animals,  are  fufficient  for  his  fub- 
fiflance.  Therefore,  this  article  of  the  feeding;  fix- 
ty-one  thoufand  afies,  which  you  would  have  us 
look  upon  as  an  object  of  importance,  might  be 
rated  very  low.  Here  are  already  three  articles  on 
which  we  might  gain  many  thoufad  acres,  without 
offending  probability, 

4thly,  We  might  have  obferved  befides,  that  in 
this  great  number  of  cattle,  of  which  Mofes  fpeaks, 
there  is  no  mention  of  horfes,  animals  which  are 
more  ufeful  for  the  race,  or  the  battle,  than  for  the 
labours  of  hufbandry,  which  confume  much,  and  are 

G  g 

(1)  In  the  environs  of  It.  "^^e  have  certain  information,  that  In  the  neigh- 
bourhood  of  Paris,  in  that  diftridl  called,  la  Frame,  the  acre  produces,  com- 
munibus  annis,  one  hundred  and  twenty,  or  on«  hundred  and  forty  budiels 
of  corn.  Thisfeemsto  be  the  calculation  of  the  learned  Abbe  Fleury,  in 
his  treatife  of  the  manners  of  the  Ifraelites.  He  lays  it  down  as  a  principle, 
that  an  acre  of  good  ground  can  fupport  two  perfons,  who  would  confume 

•each  fevcnty-two  bufliels  of  corn  annually,  or  five  pounds  and  an  half  of 
hreiA  per  diem.  He  fays,  he  is  experimentally  certain  ot  tiais  by  the  enqui- 
ries he  has  made,  probably  in  this  very  diftridl,  where  he  had  a  country-houie. 
This  learned  writer  in  one  of  his  calculations,  with  regard  to  the  population 
of  the  land  of  promife,  allows  each  Ifraeiite  five  pounds  and  an  half  of  bread 
fer  diem.  This  is  certainly  too  much,  and  the  reafon  he  gives  for  it  is  not  at 
all  fatisfa(ftory.  In  many  flates  of  Europe,  the  foldier's  allowance  is  a  pound 
2nd  an  half  of  bread,  this  perhaps  is  ton  little.  The  computation  we  make 
of  two  pounds  of  bread  per  man,  comprehending  in  this  number,  children, 
women,  the  old   and  the  fick,   is  probably    a   fufliciency,  and  beyond  it. 

Em. 

(2)  One  of  your  mofl  celebrated  Writers  &C.  Mr.  de  Buffon  in  his  Natural 
Hiftory  of  the  king's  cabinet.  A  certain  AbLe  ivhom  they  call  Pluche,  I  ielievt 
h.as  made  the  fame  ohfervation.  We  think  this  excellent  author  deferves  to  bp 
treated  more  politely  by  Mr.  de  Voltaire.     f.di(. 


230  Letters     of 

not  ufed  (1)  for  food.  But  the  cattle  which  the  Ma- 
diailites  pod'eiTed  was  not  of  this  kind.  The  affes 
do  not  lerve  for  food,  and  are  eaiily  fupported, 
and  if  the  oxen  cotilume  more  than  they  do,  yet 
thev  f^r^'e  for  food. 

•  ■5thly,  We  may  add  another  obfervation.  That 
if  the  Madianires  had  wanted  land  for  pnuurage, 
they  were  in  the  neighbouriiood  of  the  wildernefs, 
to  which  they  might  have  fent  at  lead:  a  part  of  their 
flocks  to  feed.  For  thefe  wilds,  fay  whac  you  will, 
fit,  were  not  altogether  fo  barren,  as  liot  to' have 
fome  fpots  or  dillrifts,  in  which  cattle   ;  t:^. 

We  fee  this  in  the  fcripture,  and  modern  travelkrs 
confirm  it. 

6thly,  We  have  fuppofed,  that  oiie  third  of  the 
arable  land  in  the  country  of  Madian,  refled  .yearly. 
But  what  tracts  of  land  do  we  adually  knew  in.;Jln- 
gland,  Flanders,  &c.  which  rarely  or  never  get 
reft  ?  How  many  lands  in  hot  countries,  yield  corn 
and  vegetables  under  the  fliade  of  iruit-trees  and 
vines,  and  after  having  perhaps  more  than  once 
yielded  a  crop,  are  forthwith  fowcd  again  for  the 
following  year  ?  We  fee  various  inf^ances  of  fuch 
fertility,  not  only  in  Italy,  but  in  fome  of  your 
provinces,  at  the  bottom  of  mountains,  and  in  val- 
Hes.  Are  you  ctrtain,  fir,  that  the  lands  of  the 
Madianites,  were  not  naturally  of  fufficient  fertility 
and  cultivation,  to  yield  the  fame  produce  as  thefe, 
and  that  all  their  arable  grounds  required  refl  as 
yours  do. 

In  fliort,  fir,  in  thofe  times,  and  efpecially  (2)  in 
fmall  ftates,  the  prefent  caufes  of  the  barrennefs  of 
many  countries,  did  not  yet  exifl.  The  debafing 
pradiceof  flavery,  enormous  duties,  arbitrary  taxa- 
tion, hz.  all  thofe  fcourges  of  agriculture  and  po- 

^l)  For/tf:^.  One  of  your  bed  writers  on  agriculture  and  population, 
f'vg  fomewiiere,  latf^  aivay  oneborj:,  and  you  put  tivo  men  more  in  a  country, 
I!-m. 

(2)  In  fmall  Hates.  It  in  remarkable  that  Ejjypt,  Greece,  ancient  anl  mo- 
dern Italy,  were  never  more  populous  or  more  fruitful  than  when  they  were 
divided  iritu  iD'iall  AatLS-     Idem. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  231 

pulation  were  unknown.  Nor  were  ( i )  thofe  great 
landholders  known,  who  abforb  every  place  around 
them  and  leave  it  wafte,  nor  their  luxury,  which  h 
ilill  more  hurtful  than  their  wafte.  Nor  were  thofs 
iinmenfe  buildings  to  be  feen,  which  (teal  away  the 
earth  from  cultivation,  nor  thofe  gardens,  and  ex- 
tenfive  parks,  where  utility  is  generally  facrificed  to 
pleafure.  None  of  thofe  receptacles  for  birds  of 
prey,  a  deftrudive  race,  none  of  thofe  ridiculous  (2) 
game  laws  out  of  a  barbarous  code,  thofe  odious 
remains  of  a  favage  government,  yet  carefully  hand* 
ed  down  to  us.  A  publick  profefTion  of  idlenefs, 
was  not  deemed  a  reipectable  profellion,  and  men 
did  not  yet  know,  that  to  do  nothing  was  the  way 
to  honour  God,  and  to  live  in  a  princely  manner. 
(3)  Every  man  was  a  huibandman.  The  arts  of 
luxury,  then  little  known,  did  not  engrofs  a  part 
of  the  inhabitants,  who  are  now  employed  in  fuper- 
fluous,  but  efteemed  callings.  Agriculture  was  the 
prime  art,  as  it  was  the  mod  ufeful  one. 

Thefe  caufes,  fir,  may  make,  and  have  often 
made  a  fmall  country  capable  of  maintaining  a  great 
number  of  inhabitants.  How  profitable  is  an  acre 
of  land,  when  the  cultivator  labours  under  no  dif- 
couragements,  and  knows  how  to  take  out  of  it  all 
that  it  can  yield.  Laudato  ingentia  rura,  exigimm 
colito,  fays  the  bard  of  Roman  agriculture.  This  is 
a  true  maxim,  of  which  you  do  not  feem  to  feel  the 
whole  force. 

§   5.  Nature  of  the  Madianite  foil.     The  authors 
objedions  are  anfwered. 

You  affert,  fir,  that  the  country  of  the  Madianites 
in  no  wife  refembles  thofe  of  which   we  have  been 
.fpeaking.     It  is,  you  fay,  a  barren  traft. 

(1)  ^bofegrettlanJho'.dirt,  tfc.  Some  writers  on  a^ricu'ture,  fay  t>.at 
by  multiplying  landholilcr^  the  produce  o(  land  is  iiicreafcil.  I'lify  ta'k  of 
preat  landholders  and  even  extenfive  farmers,  as  t'l-i  fconrges  of  population. 

Edit. 

(2)  Game-laTcs.  It  is  cafy  to  fee  tbat  thofe  German  Jews  have  no  hnd- 
ed  property.     IJemt 

(3)  Every  man  -zv.rt  a  Lujbaniiman.  Tt  is  prooahlr.  that  the  Madianites  vieve 
koth  merchants  and  halbandmen.     We  fee  in  G?nefu,  that  the  nu-rchant:  if 


23*  Letters    o  t 

But  can  you  tell  the  caufe  of  this  barrennefs? 
Whether  it  proceeds  from  the  nature  of  the  foil,  or 
from  other  caufes  political  or  moral  ?  From  the  ty- 
ranny of  petty  princes,  and  the  oppreffions  of  the 
Pachas  ?  From  the  lazinefs  of  the  inhabitants,  or 
from  the  weaknefs  of  government,  which  dares  not 
protect  them  (i)  againft,  the  incurfions  of  their 
neighbours  ?  In  a  word,  can  you  determine  whether 
the  barrennefs  of  this  country,  proceeds  from  its 
■Want  of  cultivation,  or  whether  it  is  not  cultivated 
becaufe  it  is  by  nature  barren  ? 

It  is  now  inhabited  by  af?nrll  clati  of  Arabians  cnly. 
Therefore  it  was  never  better  peopled.  A  fine  confe- 
quence  indeed  !  How  many  other  countries  are  there, 
efpecially  under  the  Turkilh  yoke,  which  were  for- 
merly very  populous,  and  are  now  almofi:  entirely 
depopulated.  Even  without  going  fo  far,  juft  view 
the  country  about  Rome  ;  fee  what  it  is  now,  and 
recollecl  what  it  once  was. 

It  is  a  niountainous  country.  But  do  you  not  know 
that  in  this  part  of  the  world,  the  mountains  fupply 
(2)  the  beft  paflures,  and  even  now  in  Palefline  and 
the  environs,  they  are  preferred  to  the  vallies  for 
feeding  cattle.  Do  you  think,  fir,  that  the  moun- 
tains of  Madian  containing  eight  leagues  fquare, 
were  all  covered  with  naked  rocks  ?  If  you  have  any 
proofs  of  this,  produce  them,  for  in  fhort  we  are  not 
obHged  always  to  credit  you  on  your  word. 

this  nation  went  to  traffick  in  Egypt,  and  that  they  were  carrying  thither 
gums  of  Gilead  and  fpiccs,  when  Jofeph  was  fold  to  them  by  his  brethren. 
£dit. 

(i)  Agoinii  the  in'urftons.  To  all  thcfe  caufes,  modem  travellers  afcribe 
the  prcfent  barrennefs  and  depopulation  of  Paleftine,  and  of  all  the  neigh- 
bouring countries.     See  Shaw,  Sf-Z.     ^-iut. 

(2)  "The  bcH  paJJures.  Shaw  fpeaks  thus  of  the  mountains  of  Palefline. 
"  Thtri;  are  places  on  t'leni  covered  with  that  kind  of  Ihort  fwcet  gra(s, 
"  which  cattle  prefer  to  any  other,  which  renders  their  milk  more  delicious, 
"  and  their  flefh  more  juicy.  So  far  were  thefe  mountains  in  the  time  of  the 
"  Ifraelites,  from  being  uuinhabitable  and  barren,  or  the  refufe  of  the  coun- 
"  try,  that  in  the  divilion  which  was  made  of  them,  mount  Hebron  was  gi- 
"  ven  to  Caleb  a?  a  finguiar  favour."  Thefe  mountains  probably  refcmble 
tliofe  of  .>teyuing  in  England,  the  heights  of  Brighthelmftone,  and  the  riling 
plains  of  Salifbury,  You  may  travel  many  miles  thro'  them  without  meeting 
any  houfts,  or  trees,  or  llrcanis,  but  the  fliort  grafs  which  jj rows  on  them, 
makes  them  excellsnt  paft'urage.  Each  of  them  feeds  frcni  three  to  five  thou, 
find  flvf  p.    bee  a Tuur  thro' Great-Britain.     Avt. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  2^^ 

Even  fuppofethat  this  country  is  at  prefent  barren 
ground,  covered  with  burning  rocks,  what  conclu- 
fion  could  you  draw  from  this  ?  How  can  you  know 
with  any  degree  of  certainty,  whether  thefe  rocks 
which  are  now  naked  and  barren,  were  not  then 
covered  with  good  foil,  which  the  ftormSy  rains  and 
torrents  may  infenfibly  have  wafhed  away,  and  (trow- 
ed again  with  gravel  and  fand  ?  Thefe  revolutions, 
which  in  order  to  make  your  reafonings  juft,  fliould 
be  deemed  impoflible,  are  not  uncommon.  The  lead 
fmattering  of  hiftory  or  geography  could  fupply  you 
with  many  inftances  of  them. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Numbers,  whoever  he 
be,  mud  have  known  this  country.  He  lived  near 
it,  and  he  wrote  for  a  people  whofe  lands  bordered 
on  it.  Can  we  fuppofe  him  unfkilful  enough  to  have 
placed  fuch  a  number  of  men  and  cattle  in  a  country 
covered  only  with  naked  rocks  and  burning  fands  ? 
Efpecially  as  he  might,  according  to  your  fyftem  at 
leaft,  have  placed  the  fcene  of  this  event,  which  he 
certainly  did  not  mean  to  render  incredible,  in  an- 
other place  ?  And  what  other  like  ignorance  could 
induce  the  author  of  the  book  of  Judges,  to  rcprefent 
the  inhabitants  of  fo  poor  a  country,  as  being  fo  rich 
in  cattle  and  in  gold  ?  What  fliall  we  fay  of  the  hif- 
torian  Jofephus  ?  He  furely  was  acquainted  with  the 
country  of  Madian.  And  yet  he  makes  no  fcruple 
to  reprefent  it  as  a  fruitful  country,  and  its  inhabi- 
tants as  an  opulent  people.  And  other  v/riters  give 
the  fame  charatSter  of  it.  This  country  was  not  there- 
fore in  the  beginning,  fuch  as  you  wifh  to  make  it  at 
prefent.  And  we  may  fuppofe  it  to  have  been  better 
without  any  improbability. 

§  6.  Of  the  exteiit  of  the  cmintry  of  lh;  Madiah^ 
iles.     That   the  critick    could  not  flatter  himfelfivilh 

Thispafl"agc  of  Shaw,  which  we  have  inferted.may  ferve  as  a  comment  en 
a  verfe  of  the  pfalms,  which  Mr.  Voltaire  traiiflates  fo  hal'tly,  r,iou>ii,i!ns  -/ 
God,  fat  moitntalns  ;  icby  do  yju  look  on  the  fat  ncur.talns  ?  This  is  adlino-  ES 
Perauk  did,  who  tranflated  fome  parts  of  Homer  very  ill,  and  then  I<.un<l 
them  unworthy  01  fo  great  a  pott.  Was  Pcrault  a  fit  model  for  Mr.  Vol- 
taire ? 


234  Letters    ©..f-   r\ 

having  an  exaSI  knowledge  of  it.  That  he  agreei 
ill  with  bimjelf  in  this  refped  and  plainly  contradiflsk 
himfelf. 

Thus,  fir,  without  any  exaggeration  in  our  calcu- 
lationSj  and  even  laying  afide  fome  advantages,  which 
we  might  have  availed  ourfelves  of,  we  have  fhewn 
you  that  fuch  a  people  as  thirty-two  thoufand  girls 
imply,  and  fuch  a  quantity  of  cattle  as  the  book  of 
Numbers  mentions,  might  live  in  a  country  about 
eight  leagues  fquare,  of  middling  fertility.  And  you 
can  give  no  proof,  that  the  country  of  the  Madia- 
nites,  was  naturally  fo  bad  as  you  make  it ;  and  ftill 
lefs,  that  it  was  fo  in  thofe  ancient  times.  We  might 
then  reft  here,  and  this  would  be  fufficient  to  (hew, 
that  the  abfurdity  which  you  feem  to  perceive  in 
Mofes's  account,  is  imaginary.  But  we  will  go  a  ftep 
farther.  We  will  give  your  objeQion  a  precife  an- 
fwer,  and  which  requires  neither  hypothefes,  nor 
calculations. 

Even  were  all  our  calculations  falfe  ;  even  if  the 
country  of  the  Madianites  had  not  that  moderate 
fertility  which  we  have  afcribed  to  part  of  it,  ftill  it 
would  be  your  province  to  prove,  that  it  extended  no 
farther  than  you  are  pleafed  to  allow.  Without  this, 
your  objeftion  is  ill-founded,  and  your  jokes  fall  back 
upon  yourfelf.  Now,  fir,  what  proofs  have  you  of 
this  ?  -»d> 

This  country,  you  hy^  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  j^r- 
7ion,  on  the  /out h  by  Zared,  on  the  weji  by  the  lake  Af- 
phaltis.  We  grant  it.  But  do  you  know  how  far 
it  extended  to  the  eaft,  and  whether  it  did  not  ex- 
tend fouth,  beyond  the  fource  of  Zared  ?  It  border- 
ed on  the  country  of  Moab,  or  rather  it  lay  within 
the  bounds  of  it,  fo  that  thefe  two  nations  have  been 
often  confounded  together.  Do  you  know  exadly 
the  bounds  which  divided  them,  and  the  particular 
point  where  the  wildernefs  began,  to  which  the  Ma- 
dianites v/ere  neighbours  ?  The  fcripture  determines 
nothing  with  refpcd  to  any  of  thcfe  things.  The 
mod  able  critics,,  and    learned  geographers  fpcak  of 


c  fi  R.^  T -A  I  N     Jews..  235 

them  doubtfully.  Where  then  are  your  proofs,  and 
where  have  you  borrowed  thefe  confident  affertions  ? 

We  could,  on  the  contrary,  quote  many  learned 
men  who  had  better  opportunities  of  knowing  this 
country  than  you,  and  wno  give  it  a  much  greater 
extent  than  you  do  ;  Jofephus,  (i)  Eufebius,  Jerom, 
&c.  But  l;;t  us  lay  afide  thefe  authorities  which  you 
feem  to  dsfpife.  Let  us  confine  ourfelves  to  one 
which  cannot  fail  of  beiag  important  at  lead  in  your 
eyes  •;  this  is  your  own  authority,  fir. 

Altho'  you  allow  the  country  of  Madian  here,  but 
eight  leagues  in  lengthy  and  a  little  lefs  in  breidth^  yet 
in  another  place,  you  give  it  eight  leagues  fquaro 
without  any  reflridion,  and  in  another  place  about 
(2)  nine  leagues  every  way.  We  have  here  an  addi- 
tion already  of  a  league  fquare,  which  amounts  to 
three  thoufand  eight  hundred  and  feventy  acres. 
But  this  is  not  all. 

(3)  In  your  Philofophy  of  Hiflory,  you  breakout 
in  abafe  again'l  Mofes,  becaufe  after  having  had  be- 
nefits heaped  on  him^  and  received  ftgnal  favours  from 
the  high  prieji  of  Madian,  who  hud  given  him  his 
daughter  in  marriage,  and  granted  him  his  fon  for  a 
guide  in  the  wildernefs,  he  was  moji  fhockingly  ungrate- 
ful, in  devoting  the  M^  dianites  to  deflrudion.  It  feems 
then  that  you  believe  that  the  devoted  Madianites,  and 
the  people  of  Jethro  were  the  fame  nation,  otherwife 
your  reproaches  would  be  but  vain  declamation,  and 
your  reafoning  as  falfe  as  your  imagination  is  mif- 
placed.  Now  this  high-prielt  and  his  Madianites,  liv- 
ed far  from  the  lake  Afphaltis,  in  a  place  near  the  red 
fea,  called  the  gulf  of  Elath,  or  the  Elanitick  gulf,  at 
lead  fifty  leagues  from  Zared.  Could  the  country 
.-of  Madian,  fir,  have  fifty  leagues  in  length,  and  have 

\"-' 

V-;'  (l)  Eufebius  Jerom,  Ufe.  Thefe  two  writers  IivcJ  near  the  country  of  Ma- 
dian.    They  had  ftudi«d  on  the  fpot  the  geography  of  the  fcripture,   and 

"'have  left  treatifes  on  the  fuhjedt-     Aut. 

g*    (a)  About  nine  leaguet  every  -way      See  Philof  of  Hiftory,  Art.  Human 
Vidims.     Aut. 

(3)    InyijurPhilofof,byi>fHiJltry,!!-.c-    See  ibidem.    The  fame  reproach  is 

j^a-epeatcd  in  the  fame  work,  Art.  Aiofes,  and  in  many  new  tradls.     Eait^ 


236  .Lettersof 

but  eight  or  nine  ?  It  feems  to  us  that  thefe  two  af-% 
fertions   are  incompatible.     You  may  chufe  the  al-- 
ternative.    Either  the  complaint  you  make  of  Mofes 
in  the  Philofophy  of  Hiftory  is  falfe,  or   what  you- 
advance  in  the  Treatife  of  Toleration,   concerning 
the  extent  of  the  country  of   the  Madianites  is  not "^ 
true.     Chufe,  fir,  by  which  of  thefe  two  works  you 
wifli  to  ft  and.    For  you  cannot  ftand  by  both,  or  ra- 
ther it  is   very  probable,  that  you  are  miftaken  in 
both. 

§  7.  What  ?nay  be  reafonahly  fuppojed  of  the  Ma- 
dianites and  their  country.  What  is  ?noJi  furprizing  in 
the  account  which  the  author  gives  of  the  vidory,  which 
ivas  gained  over  them  bv  our  fathers. 

Let  us  fpeak  according  to  truth,  fir,  or  at  ]eaft: 
probability.  Thefe  Madianites,  which  in  order  to 
make  your  argument  good  in  your  Philofophy  of 
Hiftory,  ought  to  be  but  one,  were  probably  two 
very  diftinft  nations.  They  had  not  the  fame  def- 
cent,  habitations  or  worftiip.  Thofe  of  jethro  de- 
fcended  (1)  from  Madian,  the  fon  of  Chus  ;  the 
others  (2)  from  Abraham,  by  Madian  fon  of  this  pa- 
triach  and  of  Cethura.  Thefe  latter  worfliipped  (3) 
Baal-peor  or  Belphegor,  as  the  Moabites  their  neigh-, 
bours  did.  The  former  feemed  to  have  preferved, 
until  the  time  of  Mofes,  fome  knowledge,  and  per- 
haps even  (4)  the  worftiip  of  the  true  God.  The 
people  of  Jethro  lived,  as  we  have  obferved,  on  the 
border  of  the  Elanitick  gulf  (5)  Madian,  their  ca- 
pital, was  to  the  eaft  of  this  gulf,  and  their  country 
extended  to  the  weftern  coaft,  and  according  to 
fome  writers,  to  mount  Sinai.  On  the  contrary, 
thofe  whom  our  fathers  conquered,  lived  near  the 

{^\)  From  Madian  thi fun  iif  Chiis.  For  this  reafon,  Sephcra  the  Madianite, 
the  wife  of  Mofes,  is  called  a  Chulitc,  Numbers,  ch.  12.  i\nd  Habakktik 
makes  Madianites  and  Chufues  fyiioninious,    Aut. 

(2)    From  Alnahamby  Madum.    See  GeiufiS,  ch.  25.     Idem. 

(  ;, )  IVorlbipp  d  Bual  pcor,  &c.    See  Numbers,  ch.  31.     JJe>?:. 

{\)  Worpip  nfthe  true  God.  Jethro  olFcrs  facrifices  to  the  God  of  Ifrael,  Ex- 
odus, ch.  28.    Aut. 

(5)  M.uii.tn  tbc'n  capital.     It  is  to  this  day  called  Madian.  JJ(>n- 


Certain     Jews.  ^37 

dead  fea.  (i)  Their  chief  city  was  built  upon  Ar- 
non,  pretty  near  the  capital  of  the  Moabites.  They 
were  rich  in  gold  and  flocks.  Their  country,  which 
even  according  to  the  extent  you  give  it,  fufficed 
for  fuch  a  nation  as  thirty-two  thoufand  girls  imply, 
and  for  the  cattle  which  Mofes  enumerates,  proba- 
bly contained  yet  more  than  thefe  ;  for  it  is  fcarcely 
poiTible  that  every  thing  was  carried  oft  or  dsftroyed 
by  the  conquerors.  It  is  probable  pa  t  efcaped,  uut 
'tis  very  likely  too  that  this  country  was  not  confin- 
ed to  the  dimenfions  you  give  it,  of  eight  leagues 
fquare.  Its  lying  within  the  borders  of  Moab,  its 
proximity  to  the  wildernefs,  the  filence  of  Mofes, 
but  more  efpecially  yours  on  its  bounds,  towards  the 
eaft,  authorize  us  to  give  it  more  extent. 

If,  therefore,  there  is  any  thing  ridiculous  or  fur- 
prizing  in  your  account  of  the  viftory  gained  over 
the  Madianites  by  our  fathers,  it  is  not  that  we  fee 
Mofes  putting  fo  many  girls  and  cattle  in  a  country, 
of  which  he  does  not  point  out  the  limits.  It  is  our 
feeing  a  philofophical  hiftorian,  and  learned  writer, 
fo  often  and  fo  confidently  repeating  an  objedion  fo 
flimfy  in  itfelf,  and  which  is  befides  fupportcd  by 
fuch  weak  proof.  It  is  our  feeing  him  determining 
the  extent  of  a  country,  without  knowing  its  exadt 
bounds,  and  in  order  to  render  a  refpedtable  author 
abfurd  and  odious,  he  is  plainly  and  blindly  contra- 
dicting himfelf.  This,  fir,  will  furprize  and  offend 
fome  readers.  As  for  us  thefe  rambles  will  not  aito- 
niih  us.  We  know  that  the  greateH:  men  are  ftill 
men.  Let  them  have  what  knov/ledge  they  will,  let 
them  pretend  to  what  impartiality  they  pleafe,  they 
mult  in  fome  fhape,  pay  a  tribute  to  humanity. 

We  remain,  &c, 
H  h 

(i)  Tbe'r  chief  city  y^c.    It  was  called  Madian  too,  thsrc  remuiije  J  fom* 
ruins  of  it  in  the  ttnie  of  St.  Jeroni.     Aut. 


238 


E    T    T    E    R    5       OF 


LETTER     VIII. 


Of  the  Jcivljh  Prophets.     ^  he  objedions  of  theillujlri- 
oils  writer  anfivered. 


Y 


O  U  cenfure  our  prophets,  fir,  not   only  in 

the  text  of  your  treatife  on  toleration,  but  in  a  Icng 
note.  And  many  other  parts  of  your  writings  have 
this  for  their  object.  Sometimes,  whilfl:  you  pro- 
fefs  that  you  are  very  far  from  confounding  the 
Jewifh  prophets  with  the  impoftors  of  other  nations, 
you  endeavour  to  put  them  both  on  the  fame  foot- 
ing. Sometimes  whilll:  you  feem  to  plead  their 
caufe,  you  turn  their  words  and  aftions  into  ridi- 
cule. And  in  order  to  give  a  fabulous  air  to  every 
thing  that  is  related  of  thefe  holy  men,  you  repre- 
fent  their  times,  as  times  of  incredible  prodigies. 
This  is  a  fubjeci  of  importance.  Let  us  try  whe- 
ther we  can  anfwer  your  objedions. 

§    1.  Firfi  ohjeHlon.   hiipofJtbiUty  of  knowing  fitture 

events. 

You  firft  lay  down  a  principle,  which  if  it  was 
true,  would  certainly  make  impoftors  and  cheats  of 
all  thofe  who  have  claimed  the  title  of  prophets 
in  every  nation.  This  principle  is,  the  impofjibility 
of  knowing  future  events,  and  by  confequence  of 
foretelling  them. 

It  muft  be  allowed  that  you  demonftrate  this  prin- 
ciple but  lamely.  You  fay,  that  //  is  evident  that 
we  cannot  kno'w  future  events,  bccaufe  we  cannot  know 
what  is  not.  What  kind  of  evidence  or  proof  is 
this,    fir. 

God,  who  knovv's  every  thing,  knows  futurity. 
You  yourfelf  probably  know  paft  events.  Now 
futurity  is  not  yet  come,  the  paft  is  gone,  it  has  ceafed 


e  E  R  T  A  I  N     Jews.  239 

to  be,  therefore  we  may  know  ( i )  zvhat  is  not. 
We  think  this  reafoning  a  little  more  clear  than 
yours,  fir. 

§   2       Second  objcSlion.     Prophecies  reduced  to  the 

calculation  of  chances. 
If  it  is  impoffible  to  know  future  events,    what 
fhall  we  think  of  all  our  prophecies  ?  You  are  going 
to  inform  us,  fir. 

All  preditlions  you  fay,  are  reducible  to  the  cal- 
culation of  chances*  iVU  predidions,  fir.  This  is 
eafily  faid. 

But  bywhat  calculation  of  chances, I  pray  you,could 
one  of  our  prophets  foretel,  that  the  altar  on  which 
Jeroboam  facrifieed  in  Bethel,  would  be  overturned, 
three  hundred  and  fixty-one  years  after,  by  Jofias  ? 
And  how  could  Elias  foretel  that  the  race  of  Achab 
fhould  be  cut  off,  and  not  a  ftem  remain,  and  that 
Jezabel,  then  on  the  throne,  fhould  be  eaten  by  dogs, 
in  the  field  of  Jczreel?  Ifaiah  announces  Cyrus  to 
the  Jews  as  their  deliverer,  more  than  two  hundred 
years  before  his  birth.  Jeremiah  foretels,  the  al- 
mofl  incredible  reftoration  of  Jerufalem,  and  the 
return  of  the  Jews  into  their  native  country,  after 
feventy  years  captivity.  Daniel  defcribes  the  de- 
ftrudion  of  the  Perfian  empire,  by  Alexander,  and 
all  the  evils  which  one  of  his  fucceffors  was  to  in- 
flid  on  the  Jewifh  nation,  &c.  Can  you  think  fin- 
cerely,  that  in  order  to  foretel  with  certainty,  thefe 
fo  diitant  and  improbable  events,  nothing  more  was 
neceflary  but  the  calculation  of  chances  ?  Surely 
•fomething  more  was  neceflary.  You  mufl  be  fen- 
fible  of  this. 

§   3.     Third  objedion.     Prophets  among  other  na- 
tions. 

But,   you  fay,    the  Jews  are  not   the  only  people 
who  boall    of  having  prophets,    juany   nations,   the 


(l)     IVuat  i»    ntt.       Stc    rlillofop'ty  of    Hlflorv,      Article    Oraclss. 
Au:. 


t4^  Letters    of 

Greeks,  the  Egyptians,  ^c.     had  alfo  their   oraclei, 
their  prophets,  their  nabim,  their  feers^ 

Yes,  fir,  but  does  it  follow,  that  becaufe  other 
nations  had  falfe  prophets,  therefore  the  Jews  had 
no  true  ones  I  We  think  that  counterfeit  coin  is 
not  an  evidence  that  fterling  money  never  exifted. 
It  rather  proves  the  contrary. 

sdly,  Could  you  fliew  in  any  one  of  thofe  nations 
a  body  of  prophecies  fo  clear,  fo  precife,  fo  wifely 
written  as  ours  ?  Could  you  vindicate  their  autho- 
rity, and  fhew  the  accompHfhment  of  them  as  we 
do? 

3dly,  Why  are  the  pretended  prophecies  of 
other  nations  fallen  into  oblivion  ?  Why  were  they 
defpifed  even  by  thofe  perfons  to  whom  they  promifed 
fuch  profperity  and  conquefts  ?  Why  have  ours 
been  preferved  for  fo  many  ages,  and  revered  at 
this  day,  not  only  by  the  Jews,  but  by  the 
moil  enlightened  people  of  the  univerfe  ?  Is  it  not 
becaufe  the  former  have  been  convifted  of  falfe- 
hood,  abfurdity,  and  impofition,  and  that  the  truth 
of  the  latter  has  been  demonftrated  by  an  inconteft- 
ible  chain  of  events,  which  all  the  prudence  of  man 
could  not  forefee. 

§  4.     Fourth    obje^ion.     Jewijh  prophets  accufed 
(f  having  had  the  fame  motives,  and  ?nade  ufe  of  the 
fame   means  with    the  falfe  prophets  of  other   nati' 
ons. 

You  protefl,  fir,  as  we  obferved  before,  that  you 
do  not  vKan  to  confound  the  Nabim  and  the  Roheim 
of  the  Hebreivs,  iiith  the  itrpofiors  of  other  nations. 
You  afiure  us  of  this.  We  muft  believe  you,  and 
the  manner  in  which  you  fpeak  of  our  prophets,  in 
fcveral  places,  is  a  convincing    proof  of  it. 

But  even  if  this  was  your  intent,  fir,  do  you  think 
that  it  would  be  eafy  for  you  to  fucceed  in  it  ? 
>\las,  vphat  relation  can  there  be  between  the  fub- 
lime  doclrine,'  the  pure  morality,  the  noble  genero- 
fity   of  the  former,  and  the  ambition,  avarice,    and 


CERTAIN      Jews.  241 

blind  fanaticifm  of  the  latter  ?  Do  you  fee  the  Jewifh 
prophets  announcing  to  their  people  abiurd  and  bar- 
barous divinities  ?  Prefcribing  impure  rites  ?  Requir- 
ing (i)  innocent  blood  ?  And  ordering  unfortunate 
children  to  be  facrificed  by  thofe  very  perfons  who 
gave  them  birth  ? 

You  fay,  //  is  eafy  to  concehs  that  a  man  might 
procure  wealth  and  popularity  by  takmg  up  the  prof efji-. 
\on  of  a  prophet,  and  that  he  jnight  fucceedby  the  {2) 
ambiguity  of  his  anfwers.  Such  indeed  were  the 
motives,  and  fuch  the  means,  by  which  deceivino- 
prophets  ufed  to  gain  authority  to  rheii  impoitures. 
But  had  our  prophets  fuch  motives  ?  Moil  of  thcfe 
holy  men  reap  nothing  according  to  you  from 
their  labours,  but  the  hatred  of  kings,  and  the 
contempt  of  nations,  perfecution,  €xile,  death, 
and  the  event  did  not  difappoint  their  expedati- 
ons. 

Nor  was  the  ambiguity  of  anfwer  their  refource. 
Mod  of  their  prophecies  gave  no  room  for  equivo- 
cation. Not  only  the  events,  but  the  circumflanc- 
es  of  them,  the  times,  the  places,  even  the  names  of 
the  adors  are  inferted  in  them.  And  the  philofo- 
pher  Prophyry,  found  the  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
in  particular  fo  exad,  that  he  thought  the  only 
way  to  evade  the  confequences  of  them,  was  to 
^  fay,  that  they  were  written  after  the  event.  If 
therefore  among  fo  many  clear  predictions,  and  fo 
exadly  verified,  fome  obfcure  ones  are  founds  the 
obfcurity  of  them  cannot  be  confidered  as  the  veil  of 
fubterfuge. 

And  yet  you  accufe  our  prophets  of  this.     And, 
what  we   could  never  have    imagined,    you  quote 


(l)  Innocent  LUood     Many  examples  may  be  given   of  this   in   profane 
■ajthors  of  antiquity  ;   everyone  has  read  the  following  verfts. 

Sanguine  placadis  ventos  &c.     virgine  cxfc  .  . . 
Sanguine  qaxrcndi   reditu.     JEneid.  II.      Aut. 

\  '{i)  Ambiguity  ef  bii  cnfitcri.     See  Philofop'oy  of  Hiflory.     A^t- 


24*  Letters     of 

as  a  proof  of  this,  the  anfwer  of  Elifha,  to  the 
traitor  Hazael.  This  prefidious  man,  had  formed 
a  refolution  of  afiaffinating  his  fovereign,  the  king  of 
Damafcus,  and  came  from  that  prince,  who  was 
then  fick,  to  confult  the  prophet  whether  he  fhould 
recover.  *'  EUjha^^  you  fay,  "  anfwered  that  the 
"  king  might  rec9ver^  but  that  lie  ivould  die*  If 
'*  Elilha  had  not  been  a  prophet  of  the  true  God, 
"  he  might  have  been  fufpe£led  of  providing  himielf 
*'^  with  an  evafion  in  any  cafe,  for  if  the  king  had 
*'  not  died,  Eliflia  had  foretold  his  recovery,  by 
"  faying  that,  he  might  recover,  and  had  not  pointed 
"  out  the  time  of  his  death."  This  might  indeed 
be  fufpeded,  if  we  were  to  form  a  judgment  of  the 
anfwer,  by  the  manner  in  which  you  relate  it.  But 
whoever  will  take  the  trouble  of  confulting  the 
text,  will  be  very  far  from  harbouring  any  fuch 
fufpicion. 

Eliflia  there  fays  to  Hazael,  go  fay  unto  him  thou 
mayeji  certainly  recover^  that  is  to  fay,  his 
diftemper  is  not  mortal ;  but,  adds  he,  fixing  his 
eyes  on  the  traitor,  the  Lord  hath  Jheived  me  that 
he  jhall  furely  die,  that  is,  that  you  yourfelf  will 
take  away  his  life.  In  this  fenfe  Hazael  underftood 
it,  and  feeling  by  this  anfwer,  and  the  ftedfaft  look 
of  the  prophet,  that  he  had  read  his  heart,  he  was 
afoamed^  fays  the  text.  Thus  Eliflia  provided 
himfelf  with  an  evafion  ! 

When  you  formed  this  objeftion,  and  quoted 
as  a  proof  the  anfwer  of  Ehfha,  had  you  before  you, 
the  fourth  book  of  kings  ?  We  fuppofe  you  had 
not.  Otherwife,  inilead  of  fufpedling  the  fincerity 
of  the  prophet,  we  might  .with  rcafon  have  doubted 
yours  ? 

However  if  this  is  your  befl  proof,    that  our  pro- 
phets ufed  artifice,    by  this  one  we  mav  judge  of  the 
•  rcfl. 

§  5.  Fiflh  cJ'jeclion.  Falfc  prophets  among  the 
yeivs.  Pretended  difficulty  of  di/iinguifning  them  from 
true  ones. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  243 

"  ' But,  you  add,  there  arofc  among  the  Hebrews  jalje 
prophets  without  mljfton,  who  believed  that  they  had 
(1)  the  fpirit  of  God. 

There  did  arife  fuch,  fir,  and  the  Hebrews  could 
not  be  furprized  at  it.  Mofes  himfelf  had  forewarn- 
ed them  of  it. 

Thefe  falfe  prophets  boafted  that  they  had  the 
fpirit  of  God.  But  did  they  believe  they  had  it  ? 
We  think  that  you  would  find  it  hard  to  prove  this. 

In  this  mixture  of  true  and  falfe  prophet^-,  you 
fay,  how  (hall  they   be  diftinguiflied  ?    They  called 
one  another  vifionarics  and  liars.     There  was  there- 
fore no  other  way  of  di/linguiJJjing  truth,  but  to  wait 
the  accotnpHjljrnent  of  the  prophecies. 

Yes,  and  by  this  rule,  the  true  prophets  requeu- 
ed to  be  tried.  By  this,  they  wiihed  to  be  diitin- 
guifhcd  from  impoifcors,  who  fpoke  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  and  whom  the  Lord  had  not  fent.  Th; 
prophet  which  prophefieth  peace,  fays  Jeremiah,  when 
the  word  of  the  prophet  fJjall  come  to  pafs,  then  fJiall 
the  prophet  be  known,  that  (2)  the  Lord  hath  truly 
fent  him.  IVhere  are,  adds  he,  thofe  prophets  wha 
affured  thee  that  Nabuchodonozor  fj&zdd  not  return  ? 
0  king,  anfwered  Mieah  to  the  impious  Achab,  who 
had  condemned  him  to  remain  in  priion,  on  bread 
and  water,  0  king,  if  you  return  in  peace,  nations 
hearken  unto  me,  it  is  not  the  Lord  who  hath  fent  mc. 
Is  this  the  language  of  deceit  ?  And  how  many  of 
their  prophecies  might  be  produced  which  have  been 
verified  by  the  event,  undjr  the  eyes  of  thofe  very 
perfons  to  whom  they  were  made. 

§   6.   Sixth  objctlion.     Ill  ufage  given  to  the  pro- 
phets. 

This  is  the  fubjeft,  fir,  of  an  article  in  your  Phi- 
lofophical  Dictionary,  an  article  of  which  you  have 
boalled  no  doubt,  as  a  perfed  model  of  the  fmefl 

(I)  Tbt fylrt  of  GjJ.     See   PhiloHiphy  of  Hiftor/.     Article,  Prophe's 
(a)   The  Lord  hath  truly  fent  l>:m.     See  Jer«m!.»h,  ch.  28.  and  3,'?.     /lut. 


244  Letters     of 

raillery,  and  mofl:  ingenious  ridicule.  Let  us  fee 
whether  you  will  have  reafon  to  glory  in  it  long. 

The  yewifo  prophets  ha've  been  perfecuted.  Yes, 
fir,  and  thele  holy  men  had  forefeen  it.  s  hey  ex- 
pelled this  reward  of  their  labours,  and  zeal  for 
their  religion  and  their  country,  whofe  fate  was  con- 
necled  with  their  religion.  For  this  reafon  we  gene- 
rally fee  them  taking  this  painful  and  weighty  office 
on  them  very  relutlantly,  and  accepting  it  at  laft 
merely  in  obedience  to  the  repeated  orders  of  heaven. 
But  as  foon  as  the  burthen  of  the  ivord  is  laid  on  them^ 
they  boldly  ilTue  forth  before  princes  and  people. 
They  upbraid  them  for  their  idolatry  and  their 
crimes,  and  then  neither  exile,  nor  chains,  nor  dun- 
geons, can  filence  their  noble  indignation. 

This 'was,  you  fay,  a  bad  trade.  Certainly  it  was 
fo,  if  thofc  trades  are  accounted  the  beft,  which 
bring  in  moft  profit,  and  are  the  fureft  fteps  to 
pov>^er,  wealth  and  eafe.  But  do  you  allow  no  other 
trades  to  be  good  but  thefe  ?  What  think  you 
then  of  the  trade  of  Socrates  and  Regulus,  and 
of  fo  many  virtuous  Greeks  and  Romans,  who 
with  a  view  to  inftrud  or  ferve  their  fellow-citizens, 
and  to  fave  their  country,  facrificed  fortune,  eafe, 
even  life,  and  moved  boldly  through  the  midft:  of 
abufe  and  perfecution,  to  that  port:  to  which  honour 
and  duty  called  them  ?  It  is  indeed  a  bad  trade  m 
the  eyes  of  the  vain  felfifh  philofophers  of  this  age, 
who  judge  of  every  thing  by  their  private  intereft, 
and  fet  no  value  on  any  thing  but  what  helps  the 
prefent  hour  of  life.  Can  you  bend  your  fpirit  fo 
low  as  this,  fir  ?  And  does  the  virtuous  man,  who 
ilruggles  againfl:  adverfity,  and  for  the  fake  of  juf- 
tice,  braves  abufe,  torments  and  death,  appear  to 
you  a  defpicable  fanatick,  and  a  poor  butt  of  ridi- 
cule ?  How  narrow  are  the  views  of  modern  philo- 
fophy,    how  mean  its  feelings,  and  how  mifplaced 

its  jelts ! 

How  was  it  poiTible,  fir,  that  you  did  not,  firfl, 
perceive  that  fuch.  great  fufFerings,  endured  with  fo 


CERTAIN     Jews.  245 

much  fortitude,  are  an  indifputable  proof,  that  thefe 
holy  m^n  were  fully  convinced  of  the  divinity  of 
their  comniiffion  ?  For  would  thefe  men,  or  ra- 
ther this  long  uninterrupted  fuccefTion  of  wife,  learn- 
ed, and  virtuous  men,  have  endured,  for  the  lake 
of  impofture,  evils  which  they  forefaw,  and  could 
not  help  forefeeing  ?  And  fecondly,  that  this  cruel 
treatment  was  fo  far  from  bringing  contemn"  upon 
them,  that  their  generous  and  uniliaken  perfeverance 
in  hardfliips,  added  to  the  elegance  of  their  talle, 
their  exalted  fentiments,  their  zeal,  their  yIrtues^, 
muft  compel  us  to  infert  them  in  the  catalogue  of 
thofe  ancients,  who  beft  deferve  our  admtr^tioa  and 
refpecl.  '"  *^ 

One  of  your  facrsd  writers  pafTed  this  judgment 
upon  them,  when  confidering  thefe  men  of  God 
wandering  in  deferts^  and  in  ?noiintains^  and  in  cwces 
of  the  earth ,  Jjtoned,  faiim  afunder,JJain  with  fhefword, 
Jie  faid  they  were  men,  of  %uhom  the  world  was  not 
nvorthy  !  Which,  fir,  ofyouorhim,  entertained  the 
mofl  juil  and  noble  opinion  ? 

§  7.  Se-venih  objection.  Nature  was  different  then 
from  what  it  is  now. 

Another  difficulty.  "  Nothing  fhould  be  matter 
"  of  aftonifhment  in  the  Jewi'h  prophets.  Their  af^es 
*'  were  fuch  as  have  not  been  {o^QVi  'ancQ.  Even  na^ 
^'  titre  zuas  iiot  then  what  it  is  (i)  now.'* 

V/e  know  that  the  cuftoms  and  manners  of  thofe 
ancient  times  were  diiferent  from  ours.  We  can 
eafily  give  credit  to  this.  But  that  nature  itfelf 
fhould  not  have  been  the  fame  then,  that  it  is  now, 
requires  proofs.     Can  you  produce  good  ones  .? 

Magicians  J  you  fay,  had  then  powers  o-vcr  natun;, 
which  they  ha^oe  not  now,  they  enchanted  ferpents, 
Thofe  poljl' fed  ofde-vils^  were  cured  by  the  root  called  Ba-^ 
rad,  which  was  fct  in  a  ring  and  put  under  their  nofcs, 

I  i 

^i)  SccTroatifc  of  Tolsratloa,     Au(, 


240  Letters     of 

I  ft,  What,  fir,  in  the  times  of  cur  prophets,  and 
oi  the  ancient  Jews,  in  thofe  times  which  preceded 
th^  capfivity,  and  in  ivbkh  devils  were  not  knoivn, 
jnagkiar.s  were  to  be  found,  and  i\-io^.Q  pojfejjed  oi  de- 
vils were  cured.  Shall  we  always  have  contradic- 
tions r 

2uly,  You  did  not  find  this  prefcription  for  cur- 
ing poiTeii'ed  pcrfons  in  the  prophets,  or  the  fcrip- 
tures.  Do  not  confound  thefe  fources,  with  thofe 
out  oi  which  you  have  drawn. 

3d]y,  If  you  look  upon  thefe  operations  as  fuper- 
natura!,  you  cannot  then  conclude,  that  nature  was 
not  then  what  it  is  now.  The  fupernatural  power  of 
thefe  operations  proves  nothing  for  or  againft  na- 
ture. 

But  if  you  look  upon  them  as  natural.  If  you 
think  that  thofe  polfelfed  with  devils,  were  only  af- 
feded  by  fome  diltemper,  we  can  iliew  that  nature, 
in  this  refpecl  has  loft  nothing  of  its  pov*?er.  Sim- 
ples, at  this  time,  cure  diftempers.  The  Americans 
charm  ferpents,  and  the  race  of  the  Pfyllcs  (i)  ftiil 
fubfiiis  in  Africa.  Some  of  thefe  are  found  in  Egypt 
too,  v*  ho  daily  handle  the  moft  venemous  vipers  and 
ferpents  (2)  without  fear  or  hurt.  Nature  is  there- 
fore now  what  it  Vv^as  formerly. 

(1)  Still fuhfijls  in  Africa.  The  Pfylles  were  ancient  families,  or  clans  of 
Africa,  fan.ous  for  the  art  of  charming  ferpents.  Many  of  them  were  fcen 
in  ancient  Rome,   givinjj  proofs  of  their  abilities  in  this  refpefl. 

(2)  V/ithont  fear  or  hurt.  Seethe  voyages  of  Hafltlqiiift.  "  A  feinale 
Pfylle,  fays  this  ingenious  naturalid,  brought  to  me  at  Cairo  four  kinds  of 
ferpents,  the  f(vv7//t.f J  the jT't/fu/uj-,  the  fea  fcrpcnt,  and  the  fliop-viper.  This 
Woman  gave  me  a  great  friglit  as  well  as  to  Mr.  de  Lironcourt,  the  French 
confiil,  and  to  many  others  of  that  natinn  who  were  prcfcnt,  flie  threw  thofe 
repiiics  full  (.f  life  at  our  fcer,  and  let  them  run  freely  about  us,  in  order  to 
fliew  us  with  what  rcfolution  (he  could  handle  thofe  dreadful  animals  with- 
out receiving  the  kaft  f.arm  from  tlieni.  When  flie  put  them  into  the  jugs 
ill  whi'.h  they  were  kept,  Ihe  took  them  with  her  naked  hands,  ss  wom^n 
take  their  l:\ics  They  were  all  cafily  p.ut  in  except  the  vipers,  who  found 
means  of  getting  out  bef.irc  flie  had  Hopped  them  up,  and  crept  up  along  litr 
hands  and  naked  arms  vvithoBt  giving  her  the  leall  fright.  She  took  them 
quietly  ojT«if  her  body,  aju!  put  them  b.  tk  into  the  place  which  was  inten- 
ded for  their  grave.  We  were  affureJ  that  (he  had  gathered  thofe  reptiles 
about  the  country  with  tlie  fame  eafe. 

"  It  c.uinet  he  doubted  but  that  this  woman  had  fome  fecret  for  prefervlng 
hcrfelf  from  their  bites,  but  we  could  not  polliby  derive  any  inf.'rmatiou 
from  h«r  on  thisfiibjcv-'l. .   'Ijhe  ait  of  charming  ferpent*  i»  a  fecrct  among  the 


CERTAIN     Jews.  247 

But  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  then  common^  and  it  is 
no  longer  fo.  It  is  true  the  _qift  of  prophecy  is  no  lon- 
ger comjuon^  but  does  it  follow  from  this  that  it  never 
exirted  ?  And  does  the  uncommonnefs  of  this  fuper- 
natural  gift,  prove  that  nature  is  not  the  fame  new 
that  it  was  fornierly. 

Such  7nct:2?norphofes  were  feen  as  that  of  Nabuchodo- 
nozor  changed  into  an  ox,  the  wife  of  Loty  into  a  fl^tue 
of  fait,  five  cities  into  bituminous  lakes. 

Probably  you  call  thefe  events  very  poetically,  me- 
tamorphofes,  in  order  to  form  a  fimilitude  between  our 
fcriptures  and  Ovid's  Metatnorphofcs.  However,  no 
matter  for  the  name,   let  us  confider  the  facts. 

Five  cities  metarnorphofed  into  bituminous  lakes.  Yes, 
fir,  but  fuch  events  are  not  confine  J  to  the  times  of 
the  fcripture  merely,  and  may  be  found  in  other  pla- 
ces befides  Ovid's  Metamorphofcs.  Afia,  Africa,  Si- 
cily, Italy,  he.  might  fupply  you  with  re::ent  inftan- 
cesof  this.     Thunder,  earthquakes,  vulcanos,  have 

Egyptians .     All  naturallfts  atiJ  travellers  fTioiiI.l  endeavour  to  find  out  fome- 
thing  certain  and  dccifive,  with  refpevft  to  an  t)bie£l  fo  worthy  of  their  curi- 
oGty.     What  is  very  extraordinary,  if,  that  this  feerct  flioiild  have  remained 
undifcovered  for  more  than  two  thoufanJ  years,  whilft  lo  many  others  have 
tranfpired.     It  is    known  on'y  to  certain  perfons,  who   tranfmit    it  to  tlieir 
dofcendant*  and    their  families.      All   that  has   tranfpired  of  it   yet,  is,   that 
tliofe  who  charm  ferpents  and  vipers,  do  not  touch  any  other  veiionioui.  rtp- 
ti'cs,  fcorpions,  lizards,  &c.    And    the    families   wliich    charm  thefe  iatter,  ' 
dare  not  touch  the  former       That  thofe  who  chartn  fsrpentsand  vipers,  fre- 
quently feed  upon  them  among  one  another  v.-hen  they  take   tl'.em,  and  that 
they  go  afterwards  and  afK  the  hitffinpof  tht-ir  cheick,  prieft  or  chitf,  who, 
amongd  many  other   fupcrflitions,  fpits  feveriil  times  o'.i  them,"     Theft:  fu- 
perftitions,  and  ethers  as   vain,  arc  probahly  more  ancient  than  is   fuppofed, 
and  perhaps  gave  rife  to  the  laws  of  Mjfes  againft  thefe  enchantments. 
•     In  a  note  in  liie  bottom  of  the  pafTajre  we  have  jiill    quoted,  Mr.  hinnaus 
affures  us.  "  that  Mr.  Jacquin,  who  then   lived   in  the  Wefl-Fuilies,  wrote, 
to  him,  that  the  Indians  charm  ferpents  with   arijlolocbia   an^hic.-lu,  and   that 
the  late  Mr.  Forfkohl,  during  his  travels  in  the  eaft,  inforrntd  him,  that  the 
Egyptians  ufed  for  the  fame  purpofe  a  fpecies  oi ariJlolo(Lia^\iii[\\it  he  did  n.)t 
tell  which."     Eriit. 

Mr  R-  of  the  congregation  of  ^t.  Lazarus,  3  man  of  probity  and  know- 
\e.i^c,  attefts  that  he  knew  a  perfon  at  Befancon  as  bold  and  as  clevrr  as  the 
rfylles,  that  he  has  feen  him  often  handling  .vipers  without  fear,  thru.'ling  in 
his  naked  arms  and  taking  out  handuills  of  th.w-m.  That  when  lie  returned 
from  (liis  kind  of  hunt,  he  ufed  to  f.-nd  thefe  vipers  to  the  fick  whom  he 
knew.  Thut  he  kept  fome  of  them  in  a  chofl,  whe'e  he  fed  them,  walking 
thro'  the  niidft  of  them  without  dread-  That  r.-hen  lie  iiad  too  many  of  thsm, 
he  dreSed  and  eat  them  in  the  w\y  of  a  fricaffee  of  chickens  Mr.  R.  aCTurcs 
n«,  that  he  tailed  this  ragout  and  found  it  g'^od.     Chtiji. 


54^  Letters 


o   F 


too  often  changed,  or  If  you  like  the  word  bettefj 
'inetamorphofed  even  in  thefe  latter  times,  men  into 
allies,  lakes,  into  mountains,  cities  into  lakes,  c:c» 

The  fame  may  be  fald  of  the  pretended  7neiamor- 
phcjis  of  Lot's  wife  into  df.d  tie  of  fait.  This  event  is 
not  fo  extraordinary,  as  to  oblige  us  to  have  recourfe 
to  Ovid's  Metamcrphofes,  in  order  to  find  out  others 
fimilar  to  it.  This  foolifli  woman  turns  her  head  to- 
wards Sodom  in  flames,  to  behold  this  dreadful  fpec- 
taclc,  and  that  inflant  a  vortex  of  iulphurous,  arfe- 
nical,  bituminous  vapours,  loaded  with  metallick, 
nitrous  and  other  falts,  furrounds  and  fuffocates  her. 
Her  body  impregnated  v/ith  and  penetrated  by  thefe 
fubPiances,  remains  without  motion  or  life,  (i)  like 
a.  ilatue.  There  is  nothing  in  this  but  what  might 
happen,  and  has  happened  more  than  once  in  earth- 
iquakcs,  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  vulcanos. 
AVitnefs  the  relation  of  Heidegger,  who  fays  that 
whilil  fom.e  peafants  were  milking  cows,  an  earth- 
quake was  fuddenly  felt,  which  caufed  fo  m.alignant 
and  piercing  a  vapour  to  ilTiie  forth  out  of  the  earth, 
that  they  and  their  cows  remained  lifelefs  like  fo  ma^ 
iiy  fiatues. 

We  cannot  fpeak  in  the  iartie  manner  of  the  change 
rf  Nabuchodono'zcr  into  an  ox.  This,  indeed,  would 
be  a  real  metamorph.ofi;,  and  v/orthy  of  Ovid,  as  ic 
much  refembles  thofe  which  he  relates.  "We  mufl: 
allow  that  nature  no  longer  works  any  fuch  changes* 
But  where  did  you  find  this  one,  fir  ?  Indeed  it  is 
faid  in  fcripture,  that  this  prince  lofc  his  rcafon,  that 

( \y  I. He  nfjiiit.  The  text  fays,  l.ecomrs  v  column  or  fi'illar  effalf.  Tl'.e 
jalte  y^rphtiitcs  WPS  very  lalt.  It  was  called  for  this  reafon,  the  Pcu  "ff'^'t.  or 
Verv  la't  f.tu  mnrffjlis,  marc fjUJJimum.  But  the  Hebrew  word  /a//,  docs  l;ot 
fi"-tiiry  inertly  common  fair,  it  is  applied  to  natron,  to  bitumen,  to  varimis 
itor.rs  nl'a  vulcano.  The  wotds  P^atite  or  fiUar of  fult,  may  therefore  be  ren- 
dered hv  ftatiie  or  pillar  of  bitumen  or  of  thole  bituminous  ttoncs,  covered 
■with  fait,  which  are  found  nrnr  this  lake-  The  fcripture  fay«,  io  become  Qotit., 
^(\v  to  Icriric  l'il:e  ci  Ccire.  ^le  hc<irt  of  j^- nhnl,  it  fays,  lecatKefone,  that  if,  rold, 
and  motidnltfs  lilu;  a  (lone.  IfVir.  Voltaire  believes,  or  feijins  to  believe, 
tliat  Lot's  wife  was  really  cha:iged  into  a  llatue  of  ;ab!e-falt,  and  that  this 
JRatue  Oil)  exifts,  he  falls  too  readily  for  fo  great  a  man  into  poyular  errors, 
ior  clfc  he  has  too  little  rcfpccl  for  his  readers.     Tdit. 


CERTAIN       J.  E    \V    S..  24^ 

he  "was  driven  from  his  palace,  that  he  wandered  for 
many  years  through  the  country,  that  he  was  expofed 
to  the  dews  of  heaven,  and  Hved  as  oxen  do  on  grafs, 
but  thefcripture  does  not  fay  in  any  place,  that  he  was 
metamorphofed  into  an  ox.  On  the  contrary,  the 
fcripture  obferves  that  the  Z7<2/r  9f  his  body  became  like  ea- 
gles feathers, and  that  his  nails  Icngthcnedlikeihofe  of  birds. 
Therefore  this  pretended  metamorphofis  of  the  king 
Into  an  ox,  was  operated  only  in  your  poetical  brains. 
Your  fruitful  and  lively  imagination,  made  you  fee 
certain  relations  between  Nabuchodonozor  and  an 
ox,  to  which  the  fcripture  was  a  ftranger,  and  which 
you  alone  could  perceive. 

Seriouily,  fir,  does  this  proceed  from  inadvertence 

or  mirth  ?  Perhaps  you  meant  to  joke.     Could  you 

not  chufe  fitter  fubjed?,  and  can  you  jed  no  other 

way,  thanby  burlefquing  thefe  refpedable  writings  ? 

The  race  of  giants,  you  fay,  has  d if  appeared.  Eze- 

kiel  fpcaks   of  pigmies.  Gammadim,  a  cubit  high,  zvho 

fought  at  the  fiege  of  Tyre,  and  in  mojl  of  thefe  things, 

f acred  and  profane  writers  agree. 

There  have  been  races  of  giants.  This  is  a  fact  at- 
tcfted  not  only  by  poets  and  mythologies,  but  by  the 
naturalifts,  travellers,  and  hillorians  of  antiquity. 
Therefore    in  this  point  f acred  and  prof ane  writers 


agree. 


But  is  it  true  that  thefe  races  of  men  have  difappear- 
ed  ?  Is  it  not  on  the  contrary  very  probable,  that 
tiiere  are  flill  giants  on  earth,  that  is,  races  of  men 
of  an  extraordinary  fize  ?  We  think,  fir,  that  this 
point  can  no  longer  admit  of  any  doubt.  Magellan 
and  Pegaforte  faw  fuch  near  the  flreights,  in  1519, 
and  gave  them  the  name  of  Patagonians,  which  they 
Hill  retain.  The  acconnts  of  thefe  two  travellers 
have  been  fince  confirmed  by  the  fucceffive  teftimo- 
ny  of  a  crowd  of  other   navigators,  (i)  worthy  of 


(i)  Worthy  of  faith .  See  tlie  clilTcrtation  on  America,  hj  Dr.  Pcrnety 
^hefc  navigators  are  mentioned  in  it.    Aut. 


C50  Letters    of 

faith.  And  very  lately  (i)  commodore  Byron,  and 
MefTrs.  (2)  Guyot,  and  la  Girandais,  have  given 
new  proofs  of  it.  Probably  then  giants  do  ftill  exift, 
and  nature  has  not  changed  in  this  refped.  Some 
ancient  travellers,  but  efpecially  the  poets,  fpeak  al- 
fo  of  pygmies.  They  were,  according  to  them,  you 
know,  little  men,  a  cubit^  that  is,  one  foot  and  an  half 
high,  who  made  war  againd  the  Cranes. 

Undoubtedly,  fir,  men  a  foot  and  an  half  high, 
armed  with  arrows,  and  ranged  in  battle  array,  en 
the  towers  and  the  ramparts,  would  have  been  a  very 
extraordinary  garrifon  for  a  city.  But  is  it  certain, 
fir,  that  Ezekiel  put  fuch  a  garrifon  in  the  city  of 
Tvre  ? 

It  is  true,  your  vulgate  verfion  mentions  amongfl 
the  troops  which  defended  the  city,  the  pygmies  or 
pygmeans,  but  we  cannot  recollecl  that  it  fays  any 
where  that  thefe  pygmeans  were  but  a  foot  and  an 
half  high. 

And  even  if  your  vulgate  verfion  did  fpeak  of  re- 
al pygmies,  the  text  does  not  mention  them,  and 
the  text  is  the  thing  in  queftion. 

The  Hebrew  text  calls  the  defenders  of  Tyre^  Ga- 
madiniy  as  you  well  obferve.  According  to  fome 
interpreters,  this  was  the  name  of  a  people  who  liv- 
ed near  Tyre  5  others  were  led  from  the  root  of  the 

(i)  Commochre  Byron,  "  As  foon  as  w«  came  on  (hore,  fays  th«  Commo* 
"  dorc,  the  favagcs  gathered  about  us,  amounting  to  about  two  liuiuired, 
••  looking  upon  us  with  aftonifhnient,  and  fmiling  at  the  difproportion  bc- 
•'  tween  c-ur  (leture  and  theirs.  They  are  fo  tall,  that  when  they  were  fit- 
''  ting,  they  were  almofl  at  high  as  the  commodore  (landing,  and  he  is  fix 
•'  feet  high,  .fee.  (Ibidem.)  Aut. 

(2)  GuyotlS'  UGlraniais,  "  When  in  1 766  they  landed  in  the  bay  of 
«<  Bfuciut,  at  the  eaft  of  the  (Ireights  sf  Magellan,  they  did  not  know  that 
'"  captain  Byron  had  fecn  there  the  year  before,  men  of  a  gigantick  (laturc. 
"  They  perceive  men  on  horfcback,  who  make  figns  to  them  to  draw  near, 
"  they  come  near  them,  and  find  them  of  extraordinary  fize  every  way. 
"  They  brought  to  Paris  the  dreffes  and  arms  of  fome  of  thefe  coloffufi'ts 
•'  which  they  prefented  to  Mr.  Darboulin  farmer  general  of  the  polls,  at 
"   whofc  hoiife  they  may  be  feen."      (Ibid  )      /lut. 

We  read  in  the  fame  dilTertation,  that  at  Chili,  men  are  fo  vigorous  in  old 
age,  that  they  beget  Children  at  ninety,  and  that  fome  female  favages 
have  had  children  at  eighty.  Nature  then  is  the  fame  that  it  was  in  the 
times  of  the  prophets,  and  even  in  the  time  of  i\braham.  Edit. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  251 

word,  to  think  that  it  fignifies  here,  hardy  men,  war- 
riors full  of  vigour  and  courage. 

Therefore  it  is  not  Ezekiel,  but  you,  who  place 
men  a  foot  and  an  half  high  on  the  ramparts  of  Tyre. 
When  we  fee  you  giving  this  city  fuch  defenders,  al- 
though we  cannot  admire  the  critick,  yet  we  difcover 
the  poet. 

However,  fir,  by  bringing  down  poetical  exagge- 
rations to  their  juft  value,  we  do  believe  with  Ariito- 
tle,  that  a  people  of  Troglodytes  lived  near  the  Afto- 
boras  and  the  Nile,  of  aftze  inferior  to  the  common, 
who  hunted  cranes  and  lived  on  fuch  fowl.  Thefe 
were  the  Laplanders  of  Africa. 

Behold,  fir,  how  you  have  proved  that  nature  was 
not  in  the  time  of  the  prophets^  what  it  is  now.  Judge 
Yourfelf  of  the  folidity  of  your  proofs. 

We  remain,  Sic,  kc^ 


252  Letters     of 


LETTER.       IX, 


The  criticks  other  objections  to  the  Jeivijl)  prophets,  an- 

fiuercd. 


w 


E  have  not  In  our  former  letter,  fir,  ex- 
haufted  all  your  difficulties  with  refped;  to  the  pro- 
phets. Some  of  them  (till  remain  to  be  examined.. 
You  draw  thefe  latter  ones  from  the  typical  language 
which  thefe  holy  men  ufed,  and  from  fome  expref- 
fions,  in  which  you  think  they  indulged  themfelves 
rather  too  freely. 

Thefe  objedions  are  not  new,  fir.  TIndall  has  al- 
ready borrowed  them  from  fome  writers,  who  bor- 
rowed them  alfo  ;  and  you  can  only  claim  the  ho- 
nour of  propofmg  them  with  art  whilft  you  feem  to 
endeavour  to  anfwer  them,  a  ftratagem  which  Bayle 
has  taught  you. 

Such  as  they  are,  however,  they  mud  be  anfwer- 
ed.     And  we  think  this  may  be  done  fatisfadorily. 

5    1 .  Typical  language,  its  power ;    it   was    ufed 
among  many  nations. 

Whether  it  was  that  men  had  not  at  firlt  a  fuffici- 
ent  variety  of  terms  to  exprefs  (i)  their  fentiments 
and  ideas,  or  that  it  was  found  neceifary  to  flir  up 
the  imagination  of  favage  nations  by  fenfible  objeds, 
in  order  to  perfuade  them,  it  was  ufual  for  men  in 
ancient  times,  to  exprefs  themfelves  on  certain  occa- 
fions  by  extraordinary  attions,  which  reprefcnted 
their  meaning,  in  a  forcible  manner. 

The  powers  of  this  fort  of  language  were  certain- 
Iv  f^rcat.     It  (hewed  the  objed  inltead  of  defcribing 


(l)  Thi'irfcr.t'-mcnU  and  ideas.  The  learned  Lifliop  of  Glofter  afcrlbes  to 
thiscaufc,  the  x^lc  of  tyfical  hiiguaije,  anil  indeed  it  is  probahlc,  that  it  was 
the  firft  and  chief  caule  of  it,  Mr.  Voltaire,  for  what  reafoii  \vc  know 
iiDt,  vvilhcs  rJthcr  to  look  for  the  rife  of  it  in  the  cuftom  «tf  writing  in  hitro-r 
glyphicks.  But  furcly  men  n)Ha  have  fpoken  by  O^'ns  and  types,  before  tlicy 
wrote  in  hitro^^lypliivlis.   •  £.../. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  2r^ 

it.  And  a?  it  ipoke  to  the  ni^il  (i)  lively  of  the 
fenfes,  itcoai.l  ;i3l  Uil  of  awikeiiiu^  t.i^i  attontioa  of 
the  .11  >  L  i  lii'fireat  or  h-jidieHi.  In  viin  did  J^^re- 
miah  threAten  Jerufalem  with  iinpeadia;  ruin,  his 
voice  WAS  i'czrcdy  h^^ard.  Bar  whe;i  hi  oroa^ht  tha 
chiefs  oF  thi  city  oat  of  the  gate,  aad  orok?  the  pot- 
ters ve-Tel  bsfore  the.n,  'ih'jXAy ^  thus  faith  th?  Lor d^ 
thus  will  I  dejlroy  'J^'rufahm^  the  whole  city  was  mov- 
ed. A  Levite  fends  to  each  of  the  tribes,  one  of  the 
bloody  li;Ti'-)^  of  his  abufed  wife.  By  what  words 
coald  hz  ccj  oat  for  venvemce  more  powerful!/  ? 

This  Ian  raiTe  wa^  knoov^n  by  all  a;ici>;nr  nations, 
but  WIS  chied/  ufeJ  in  thj  ea't,  and  as  o  )r  prophets 
confor.ned  to  the  ta  le  of  the  country,  and  the 
manners  of  the  ag-,  .they  ufed  it  oftea  in  their  pre- 
diclions. 

Wien,  w'th  a  view  to  ridicule  it,  you  confine  it 
to  the  ti'H^i  of  th^  old  wirld  which  wa;  very  different 
from    the  nciv  ;   yoa  make  a  mi!lake,  lir  ;   we  could 
produce  you   in  b  ices  of  it    in   lat^r  periods,  and 
even  in  th--  mit  polite   era  of  Greece.      Thus    Tar- 
quin  f)ot3  t  >  the  me'T.'n^er  f.-orn  his  fon.      Idle  am- 
biiiior  of  the  Scyrhians  to  Darius.      Alexander   to 
his   favour  te,  &c.    kz.     Aid    without    mentioning 
here    Aaii.dca,  where  this  langua^-^e  has  been  found 
ajjain,  at  this  day  mmy  nations  in  the  ea:l;  preferve 
ic.      If  you  had  nol  fj  much  bu'inefs,  and  could  fpare 
time  to  read  over  the  oriental  wrirers,  or  the  travel- 
lers  who  have  gone   through   thel'e    countries,  you 
would   find  that    many    of  thofe    ancient   cudon?, 
which  appear  to  you  to  have  belojiojed  to  the  old  world, 
are  ftill  found   there.     Does   it  follow  that  this  lan- 
guage  is    ridiculous,  becaufe  it  is  not  common   in 
your  country  ?   Wdl  you  aKvays  judge  of  every  tiling 
bv  your  own  cultoms  ^ 

K  k 

(l)  Moft  lively  of  ihefenfei.    '  i'is  tne  thought  of  Horacc. 

■   Sejftiius  irritant  animos  deniifTa  pfratuetn, 
Quam  (j^aae  funt  octtlis  fuojcda  iiiiclibus.     Edit, 


f  j;^  L  E  T  T  E  R  s    a  r 

§  2.  Allegorie's  and  parables  ufed  by  cur  prophets. 
To  this  language  of  actions  and  types,  the  cri- 
entals  added  another,  that  of  allegories  and  para- 
bles. They  brougbr  them  into  diicourfe  arrd  as  tra'^- 
Tellers  inform  us,  flill  bring  them  in  fuch  a  mr.n*- 
ner,  that  if  one  was  not  apprized  of  this  cuflom, 
it  would  be  eafy  to  make  miffakes,  and  to  take 
fr^ures  for  tacis  and  parables  for  (i)  real  actions^- 
Wc  think,  fir,  that  you  have  often  made  thJs  mif- 
take  in  your  reafoning  on  the  pfopHets.  You  havel 
often  confounded  real  afVions,  viiions  and  parables* 
"We  fnall  proceed  to  diftinguilli  what  you  have  con- 
founded. 

§  3*  y^f^^f^i'"^'^  bearing  yokes. 

You  think,  fir,  that  our  prophets  have  carried 
typical  language  to  ar>  ajionijhing  height b.  1  htfc 
difcourfes^  you  fay,  thefe  eragmatical  actions,  j'care: 
'weak  minds  that  are  not  fujji dent ly  acquainted  with  ami' 
quity.  You  are  probably  better  acquainted  with  it  laan 
tiiey  are,  and  it  is  only  with  a  view  of  intruding 
ti:em,  that  you  relate  iome  of  the  typical  adlioiis-  of 
our  prophets  in  your  own  way. 

You  begin  with  Jeremiah.  Voa  reprefent  hint 
to  us  bound  with  eords,  a  pack  faddle,  uiib  collars^ 
and  yokes  on  his  back.  We  czw  find  in  fcnpture 
that  Jeremiah  loaded  himfelf  with  chains,  and  we 
-will  allow  that  he  put  collars  on  his  back ;  but  we 
c-iannot  fee  in  any  part  6f  it,  that  hzbore  a  pack  fad- 
die.  He  put  on  yokes  to  fhew,  that  Nebuchodo-- 
itozor  was  going  to  put  Judea  and  the  neighbouring 
provinces  under  the  yoke  ;  but  what  couid  induce 
him,  fir,  to  wear  a  patk  f addle  ?  A  pack 
faddle  and  a  yoke  are  different  things.  Do  you 
confound  one  with  the  other  t  Or  is  it  to 
raife  a  laugh,  that  in  fpite  of  truth  and  fenle, 
you    repreient  Jeremiah    thus  Jaddltd  ?     This   ih- 

(i)  Henl  aSlitttt.     Thos  it  it  a  doubt  imoncj    Chrtfiians,  ■whether  the  bcg- 
ear  Lazarus  and  the  Samaritan,  aro  parabiCii  cr  true  hiduries.    £dit. 


c  E  R  T  T  A  I  N     Jews.  255 

deed  is     an     ingeniaiis    and  qlegant   vein  of    hu- 
-l^nour ! 

H:)wever,    fir,  if  [ersniiah,   by  tying  hinifelf  with 
-mrds   and  putting  yokjs   on    his  back,    only  conformed 

to   received  cujioni,    as  you  affert,   how   could    thefe 
-typical  adious  which  vjzxz  conformable  to  cuitoni 

-appear  llrange  or  ridiculous  ? 

5   4.     Ifaiah  zualks  naked. 

Bv.it,  you  fay,  "  Mm  faw  Ifaiah  walking  ftark 
.*'  naked  in  Jerufalem,  in  order  to  fhew,  that  the 
■*'  king  of  Aifyria  wrald  bring  a  crowd  o-f  captives 
*'  out  of  Egypt  and  Etheopia,  who  woiild  not  have 
■"  any  thing  to  cover  their  nakednefs.  Is  it  poflible, 
that  a  man  could  walk  ftark  naked  thro'  Jeru- 
falem without  being  punifhed  by  the  civil  pow- 
er ?  Yes  certainly.  Diogenes  was  not  the  only 
man  in  old  times,  who  had  this  impudence. 
Strabo  fpeaks  of  a  feci  of  Brachmans,  who 
would  have  been  afliamed  to  wear  garments,  and 
at  this  day  in  the  Indies,  we  fee  penitents  walking 


iC 
€6 

«  n:iked,    &c." 


'Ihefe  fad3,  doubtlefs,  fir,  are  curious,  and 
your  thus  bringing  together  Ifaiah,  Diogenes  and 
the  Brachmans,  is  an  admirable  inftp.nce  of  that  love 
of  truth    which    indames    you.       But     where  »did 

.  you  read,  fir,  that  Ifaiah  walked  Ji.rrk  naked  in 
Jerufalem?  No,  he  did  not  ^2X'f^  ftark  naked  ^  he 
walked  without  his  robe  or  his  tunick,  as  flaves  do, 
to  whom  they    always  give   cloathing  fuflicient  to 

:tm)cr  their  nakednefs. 

The  Hebrew  word  which  you  \x7sS}i2XQ,  fiark  naked, 
.fignifies  here,  and  in  many  other  place?,  no  move 
than  flripped  of  his  upper  garments.  For  this  rea- 
fon   the  text  obferves,  that  .  Ifaiah  ivalked  iviihout 

:fpoeSy  and  with  naked  feet,  which  would  have  been 
a  fuperfluous  obfervatioa  if  the  En't  term  had  fjgnifi* 
cd  Jlark  naked. 


356  Lettersof 

Befides,  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  even  the  French 
word,  whicli  anfwers  to  the  Hebrew,  does  not  al- 
ways fignify  ftrlpped    of  all  garments. 

When  Virgil  lays  to  the  hufbandrnen,  nttdus  ara 
(i)  fere  niicltts.^  did  he   mean   that  they  ought   to   be 

■  ftark  naked  ?  And  when  you  fay  of  a  poor  iv  an,  t^at 
he  is  i.aked^  quite  nckcd^  does  this  ncctlTarily  im- 
ply, that  he  has  not  cloathing  to  cover  his  naked- 
nefs. 

You  may  fiill  go  on  in  amazement,  tl  at  Ifaiah 
wi'ke-l  fiirk  naked  in  Jeriiraleiii,  an  I  iha!"  he  was 
■not  puniff:cd  by  the  civil po'wcr.  Compare  him  again 
with  the  Grecian  Cynic,  the  Brachmans  and  the 
Santons.  As  if  Diogenes  and  the  Brachmians 
wanted    to    prefigure   the    fhate     of  Haver y.      'I  hefe 

■  madmen  had  a  different  motive,  and  this,  motive, 
which  was  not  that  of  the  prophet,  required  abfo- 
lute  nakednefs. 

Ifaiah  therefore  walking  Jiark  naked  in  your  wri- 
tings, could  only  make  the  mofl  ignorant  readers 
laugh.  i  his  is  all  the  profit  that  can  be  reaped 
from  fuch  raillery.  Is  it  your  aim,  fir,  to  make 
fools  laugh  by   bantering  them  ? 

Tindal  aflerted  likewife,  that  David  had  danced 
/iark  naked  before  the  ark,  and  you  would  willing- 
ly make  us  believe  this  too.  But  Ltland  anfwers, 
that  David  was  fo  far  from  having  danced  Jiark 
naked^  that  the  fcriptures  fays  exprefsly  he  was 
cloathed  with  his  ephod,  or  the  linen  robe,  which 
was  a  facerdotal  veOmcnt.  Therefore  v;hen  it  fays 
that  he  danced  naked  before  the  ark,  it  only  means, 
that  he  had  thrown  off'  the  garments  he  ufualiy 
wore,  aid  all  the  marks  of  his  dignity,  a  fenfe 
of  which   we  could  give   many  inflances    even  in 


fr)     Sere  niirfu.t.     When    Virjjil    pul)liITied    Ms     Georpicks,     a      critic!; 

..who    was     reai'.iriij     the   heijiiming    nf     this    vcrll*,    fiuduj    ,rra,    fere  nudut, 

•    Conc'iU'lcd  it  hy  thtfR  Wurils,  fj,i6<.l>is  fiigora,  fcbra — plough   ii-ilcJ,  Jezv   natcd, 

•    lays  Virgi    ;    't':s  the -ivay  to  <:^et  a  fever,   anCwcrs   ti  e  crititk.      Would  i;wt  ohC 

tliiak  that  our  philol'opKcio  have  taken  this  poor  joke  fcr  a  jiattcru.  IdU, 


CERTAIN     Jews.  257 

profane  writers,    and  not  that  he  danced  Jiark  na- 
ked. 

Thefe   pitiful  obje£lions  and    cold    jefls,    which 
our  pbilofophers    hand  down   frv^m   one  to  another, 
will    at    Icafl  give   us  jufl:  grounds  for    fulpedting 
their  erudition  or  their  fmcerity. 
§    5.     Of  Hofea. 
The    prophet    Hofea   aitonifhes    you     flill  more. 
'*  God,    you  fay,    commands  him    to  take   a  wo- 
"   man  ot    whoredoms,  and    to    have    children   of 
"  whoredoms.        He    airerwsrds    orders    the    pro- 
"  phet  to  lie   with  an  eidulte.ous     v.oman.     T.iefc 
*'  orders    give   fcandai.     God  could  not  order  a  pro- 
*'  phet  to  be  a  debauchee  and  an  adulterer.^* 

No  certainly.  But  can  you  prove  that  God 
comraanicd  his  prophet  to  be  a  debauchee  ?  He 
orders  him  fo  take  a  woman.  Therefore  the  order 
is  marriage,  not  formcotion.  Suppofe  the  woman  was 
a  prodirute  before  her  marriage,  is  it  not  probable, 
that  Hofea  u'hen  he  married  her,  reHiored  her  to 
virtue,  and  that  their  chihlren  heing  the  i.Tue  o'  Liwful 
marriage,  were  called  children  of  fornication,  mere- 
ly with  relation  to  tiie  former  exceflfes  of  their  mo- 
ther ?  What  proofs,  fir,  have  you  of  the  contrary  I 
Therefore,  even  according  to  this  fuppofition,  Ho- 
fea in  executing  the  commands  of  the  prophet, 
would  nor   have  been  a  debauchee. 

Bat  is  it  very  certain,  that  a  proditute  is  meant 
here?  There  are  Hrong  _rcafons,  fir,  for  doubting 
it.  "  When  an  infidel,'*  fays  (i)  a  learned  chrif- 
tian  lately  to  Dr.  Kennicott,  "  wants  to  prove  that 
*'  God  not  only  permits  but  commands  things, 
*'  which  are  contrary  to  his  law,  he  confidently  op-, 
*'  pofes  this  verfc  of  Hofea,  and  already  glorying  in 
*'  his  victory,  he  rlfes  on  this  text  a  trophy  to  im- 
piety and  infidehty.     But  the  true  Hebrean  is  not 


<c 


{i)  A  Jtarntii  chr'tftlan.  Tlic  Ahhc  de — Ex-profeflor  of  Helirew.  This 
•yplanati.111  is  alfi>  fouucl  in  the  Frinci^ct  Jijcutez  of  tiic  IcariKt!  fatlicr  Capu- 
<iiins  of  Paris.     A^t. 


7^55     ^  L/E    T    T  ,E   .11    S       O  'F 

•'^  moved €iAer  with  thefe  Oiouts;of-vi£tory,  or  with 
"  the  feverity  of  his  adverfary. 

"   He  examines  the  text  attentively,  -and  he  reads 
"  in    it   literallv,  that   the  Lord  lays  to  Hofea,  ro 
*'  t^ke  unto  thee  a  wife  ofvjhoredoms,  and  children  of 
whoredoms y  for  the  land  hath  committed  great  zuhore' 
dom  in'  departing  from  the  Lord.     Yixi\,  then,  he 
recollefts,  that  the  prophets  fearcely  ufe  any  other 
terms    than  thofs   of  whoredom  2diti  adultery,  to 
fignify  idolatry. 
''  He  then  fixes  his  attention  on  thefe  vsrords,  bc- 
^^  caufe  the  earth  hath  done  fhamcfutly,  and  thus  he 
-*'  reaf^ns.     Did  God  command  his  prophet  to  mar- 
*'  ry  a  proflitute  ?  1  can  fcarcely  believe  it.     Good 
^'  fenfe  and  reafon  dictate  to  me,  that  children  born 
**'  in  lawful  wedlock  cannot  be  children  ofivhoredoms. 
"^'  Therefore  this  epithet  of  infamy,  cannot  fall  either 
'**  on  the  mother  or  the  children.     On  v/hom  then 
**  -will  it  fall  ?  0\\  the  land  which  broke  the  Lord's 
covenant,   by,  proflituting   itfelf  to    idols.     Now 
if  it  be   the   land  which  proflitute^    itfelf,  as  the 
prophet    himfelf   fays,  this  woman  whom   he  is 
going  to  marry  by  God's  command,  is  not  a  prof- 
***  titute,  but  a  ivoman  out  of  the  land  of  proftitutiojiSy 
■"  and  her  children  will  for  the  fame  reafon,  be  chil- 
"  dren  born  in  the  land  of  proditutions,  that  is  of 
"  idolatry.  In  fa£l  the  kingdom  of  Ifrael  had  been  for 
*'  near  two  centuries  plunged  in  the  mod  monftrbus 
*'  idolatry.     In  order  to  lake  the  people  out  of  it, 
'*'  God  had  for  a  long  time  threatened  them  fevere- 
■*'  ly.      At  lad  he  fends  forth  Hofea  as  his  fervanr, 
•'^  go,  fays  he,  take  a  wife  in  this   land   of  idolatry. 
•*'  The  prophet  obeys  him.     He  marries  j   he  has 
*'  children,  and  .God  himfelf  names  them,  he  calls 
*'  one  of  them,  /  ivill  no  more  have  mercy,  the  other, 
•'■^Te  are  not  my  people.     This  was  God's  intent,  to 
*•  keep  perpetually  in  the  fight  of  this  ungrateful  na- 
"  tion,  children  whofe  names  fhould  be  a  proof,  a 
"  memorial,  a  continual  and   living  monument  of 
"  his  indignation,  and  of  the  calamities  he  was  go- 


'.CS 


E  .R  TAIN     Jews. 


259 


<«  I'ng  to  infiid  on  them.  This  was  the  meaning  of- 
"  the  marriage  which  he  ordered  the  prophet  to  con- 
*'  tract,  and  it  was  not  neediYil  for  this  end  that  he 
*•'  fliould  marry  a  proftitute.'* 

What  think  you  of  this  explanation,  fir  ?  Is  it  not 
a  natural  one,  and  the  proofs  of  it  very  clear?  !  here- 
fore  it  is  not  certain  that  this  wife  of  ivhoredomsy 
whom  Hoi'ea  was  commanded  to  marry,  was  a  prof- 
iitute  ;  and  as  we  (hewed  above,  altho'  (he  had  been 
©ne  before  her  marriage,  Hofea  might  have  married 
her  without  being  a  fornicator  and  a  debauchee. 

We  ilvall  fay  the  fame  thing  of  the  adulterous 
woman.  Explain  the  text  of  Hofea  as  literally  as 
you  pleafe,  you  can  never  prove  that  God  com- 
manded the  prophet  to  conmnt  any  crime  with  her, 
which  the  law  forbad  and  even  made  capital.  But 
what  would  you  think  if  we  were  to  add  with  many 
learned  interpreters  and  ingenious  criticks,  that 
thefe  orders  were  perhaps  never  given  by  God,  noy 
executed  by  the  prophet.  That  probably  they  were 
nothing  but  rhetorical  figures,  parables  conformable 
to  tbefiyle  and  ufagcs  of  the  ancient  times?  This  has 
been  the  opinion  among  the  Jews,  of  the  Chaldean 
paraphralt,  Aben  Ezra,  Maimonides,  he.  And 
among  Chriflians,  of  St.  Jerom,  Witfuis,  Stilling- 
fleet,  Sec.  And,  to  tell  the  truth,  altho*  we  adopt 
the  literal  interpretation,  yet  the  reafons  which  the^" 
give  are  by  no  means  contemptible. 

If,  iiittead  of  reprefenting  the  a£lions  of  Hofea  as 
criminal,  you  had  been  fatisfied  with  faying,  that 
ihey  Xvere  not  very  decent  in  a  prophet  of  the  Lord, 
you  would  have  had  a  little  better  fliew  of  reafon. 
But  we  could  have  anfwered,  that  decorums  are  not 
every  vv/here  the  fame.  That  they  vary  according 
to  the  notions  and  manners  of  ages  and  nations. 
That  the  people  of  the  eaft  were  not  then,  nor  are 
they  now,  fo  nice  about  marriage  as  the  Europeans. 
That  thefe  actians  of  the  prophet,  who  was  known 
to  fpeak  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  to  obey  his 
©rders,  had  nothing  in  them  fbameful  or  degrading. 


26o  Letters     of 

altho'  they  mi:^'-it  appair  extraardinary,  which  was 
necefTary  in  order  to  roule  the  minds,  and  awaken 
the  attention  of  men. 

§   6.  Of  Ezekiel.     Allegories    and   vlfiom   of  this 

prophet. 

The  idolatrous  cities  of  Jerufalem  and  Samaria, 
arc  reprefented  by  Ezekiel  under  the  figure  of  two 
proftitutes.  You  pretend  to  fear  leail  thefe  natural 
paintings  of  the  prophet,  may  offend  Kvsak  minds. 
You  undertake  to  juftify  them.  But  it  is  not  'till 
after  you  have  fliewn  them  i-n  all  their  nakednefs, 
that  you  make,  a  little  of  the  lateft,  a  judicious  re- 
flection. 

Thofe  exprejfions,  you  liiy,  which  appear  loofe  to  us, 
were  not  fo  then.  Some  words  which  are  not  indecent 
in  Hebrew^  would  he  fo  in  our  language.  Therefore  the 
greatftft  caution  fhould  be  ufed  in  rendering  ccriain 
expreinons  out  of  our  language  into  yours.  Judge 
ofyourfelf,  fir,  on  your  own  principles. 

In  order  to  prove  that  our  decorums,  are  notfimilar 
to  thofe  of  other  nations^  you  add,  *'  1  hofe  exprellions 
"  of  Ezekiel,  which  feeni  extraordinary  to  us,  did 
''  not  appear  fo  to  the  Jews.     It  is  true  that  the  fy- 
*'  nagogue,  in  the  time  of  St.  Jerom,  did  not  per- 
"  mit  the  reading  of  this  prophet  before. the  age  of 
**  thirty  ;  but  it   was   becaufe  he  fays,  that  the  fan 
"  fi:>ail  not  hear  the  iniquity  of  his  father^  in   which 
"    he  plainly  contradided  Mofes."     This  pafTage.of 
the  Phihfophical  Di&ionary,  brings  to  our  minds  ano- 
ther in  the  Trealife  on  Toleration.     You  fay    in  it  j 
**   Notwithftanding  the  plain  contradiction  between 
"  Ezekiel  and  Mofes,  the  propliet's  book  was  re- 
*''•  ceived  into  the  canon  of  infpired  writings.     It  is 
"  true,  that  the  fynagogue  forbad  the  ufe  of  it  bc- 
''  fore  the  age  of  thirty  years,  but  the  caufe  of  this 
'*  prohibition   wa?,  lead  young  men   fliould  make 
"  an  ill  ufe  of  the  loofe  defcriptions  that  are  in  it." 

Obfevvc,  fir,  how  your  two  texts  agree  with  one 
another.  In  one  of  them,  the  reading  of  Ezekiel 
was  not  forbidden,  becaufe  he  plainly  contradids 


CERTAIN         J    JE-    W    s.  261 

Mofes,  but  leajl  young  me?iJhould  make  an  ill  iife  of  the 
loofe  dejcnptions  that  are  in  it.  In  the  other,  the  pro- 
hibition was  not  on  account  of  thofe  exprtllions 
which  appear  too  free  to  us,  although  not  fo  to  the 
Jews,  but  becaufc  Ezekiel  confradiclcd  Mofes. 

No,  fir,  Ezekiel  does  not  contradicl  Mofes.  We 
have  proved  it  ;  but  certainly  one  of  your  texts  con- 
tradi£is  the  other. 

We  may  add,  that  the  fynagogue  was  certainly 
right,  in  prohibiting  the  reading  of  this  prophet  be- 
fore thirty.  Some  expreilions  which  might  have 
been  decent  in  the  time  ol  Ezekiel,  became  perhaps 
too  free  when  the  prohibition  wa^  given.  luilances 
of  thefe  revolutions  are  feen  in  all  languages.  Is  it 
in  order  to  contradifl  the  fynagogue,  or  to  edify 
young  people  of  both  fexes  in  Fraiice,  that  a  cele- 
brated French  writer  has  tranllated  ^o  freely  thofe 
too  free  expreffions  of  Ezekiel  ?  In  plain  fincerity^ 
fir,  which  condudl,  that  of  the  fynagogue  or  of  the 
writer  is  mod  rational  ? 

Let  us  fay  a  word  of  the  vifions  of  this  prophet. 
Whether  thro'  inattention,  or  to  amufe  your  readers, 
you  foraetimes  t.ke  thofe  vifions  for  realities. 

"  Ezekiel,"  you  fay,  "  devours  the  parchment 
*'  volume,  which  is  prefented  to  him.  He  remains 
lying  on  his  left  fide  three  hundred  and  ninety 
days,  and  on  his  right  fide  forty  days,  in  order  to 
point  out  the  years  of  the  captivity.  He  loads 
himfelf  with  chains,  which  prefigures  thofe  of  the 
people.  He  covers  his  bread  with  excraments, 
"  2cc.  kc. 

Let  us  examine  thefe  afTertions  diftinclly.  Ezekiel 
devours  the  parchment  volume.  No,  fir,  Ezekiel  did 
no  fuch  thing,  and  this  volume  was  not  really  pre- 
fented to  him,  but  onlv  in  a  vifion.  If  you  had 
been  more  attentive,  you  might  have  obferved,  that 
the  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  out  of  which  this  paifage  is 
taken,  begins  by  thefe  words,  fifion  cf  the  glory  of 
God.  And  when  I  looked^  fays  the  prophet,  behold 
an  hand  v:as  fent  unto  me,  and  k  !  arcUufa  book  zvas 

LI 


(C 


i62  Letters     of 

therein.  Lo  !  1  opened  my  mouth,  and  he  cairfed  me  t» 
eat  that  roll.  Then  did  I  eat  it,  and  it  was  in  my 
mouth  as  honey  for  f'ujeetnefs. 

Do  you  think,  fir,  that  St.  John  really  eat  the 
book  of  which  he  fpeaks  in  the  Revelations  ?  This 
paffage  explains  the  other.  What,  fir,  does  a  learn- 
ed Chriftian  like  you,  take  allegories  ard  vifions  lite- 
rally ?  I  fuppofe  you  are  only  aiming  at  a  joke ! 

He  remains  lying  on  his  leftfide^   Iffc.     The  remain- 
der of  this  palfage  of  Ezekiel,  fir,  is  a  further  proof, 
that  all  this  paiVed  in  a  vifion,  and  not  in  real   life. 
Hhen  the  /pint  entered  into   me,  fays  he,  and  Jet  me 
upon  my  feet,  and  [pake  with  me^  and  faid   unto  me^ 
go  fhut  tbyfelf  within  ihy  h  ufe.     But  thou,  0  fon  of 
man,  behold  they  fhall  put  bands  upon  thee,  and  Jhall 
bind  thee  with  them,  afid  thou  fhalt  not  go  out  among 
them,     And  I  will  ?nake  thy  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
thy  mouth,   that  thou  fhalt  be  dumb.     Lie  thou  alfo  up- 
on thy  left  fide  three  hundred  and  ninety  days.     Lie 
aguin  on  thy  right  fide  forty  days.     And  behold  I  wiH 
lay  bands  upon  thee,  and  thou  fhalt  not  turn  thee  from 
one  fide  to  another,  'till  thou  hafi  ended  the  days  of  ihy 
(lege.     The  Spirit,  you  fee,  enters  into  the  prophet. 
*The  Spirit  fpeaks  to  him,  and  binds  him  in  order  to 
keep  him  on  the  fame  fide.     Does  not  all  this  imply 
a  vifion  rather  than  real  life  ? 

He  covers  his  bread  with  excrejnents.  This  adion 
which  is  conneded  by  the  fubfequent  narration,  with 
Avhat  goes  before,  paiTes  alfo  in  the  vifion.  There 
cannot  be  the  leafl  doubt  of  it. 

Hovi^ever,  this  expreflion  oi  covering  his  bread  with 
excrements,  fgnifies  no  more  than  baking  his  bread  u?7- 
der  dried  excrements  fet  on  fire.  The  cuftom  of  mak- 
ing ufe  of  the  dung  of  animals,  fuch  as  oxen,  ca- 
mels, &:c.  for  this  purpofe,  was  common  in  the  poor 
countries  of  the  eaft  ;  and  modern  travellers  inform 
us,  that  it  flill  fubfifls  among  the  Arabians  (i)  who 

(l)  Who  "tve  near  the  Euphrates.  Sometliing  like  this  is  pra(Sifed  in  France, 
in  Britar.ny,  and  other  provinces.  The  dungof  2niu:als  isg-thcrcu  together 


cfiRTAiN     Jews.  26* 

live  near  the  Euphrates,  and  in  other  places  too. 
A  quantity  of  their  unleavened  dough  is  Ipread  upon 
a  ftone.  This  is  covered  with  the  dung  of  cattle 
which  is  fet  on  fire,  and  the  bread  is  foon  baked  un- 
der thefe  afhes.  To  this  cuftom  Ezekiel  alludes,  and 
by  this  he  fhtiws  the  indigence  to  which  the  Jews 
were  to  be  reduced. 

When  a  man  recals  to  mind  thefe  cuftoms,  fir, 
what  mail  he  think  of  the  lilthy  jefts  of  certain  wri- 
ters, and  among-  others  yours,  fir.  Let  me  prefent 
you  fome  of  them. 

The  Lord,  (i)  you  fay,  ordered  bim  to  eat  for  three 
hundred  and  ninety  days  barley-bread,  made  alfo  of 
heans  and  ?}iillef,  covered  with  human  excrements,  the 
prophet  cried  out  pouah  !  pouah  !  pouah  !  my  foul  was 
never  before  polluted.  And  the  Lord  anfwered  bim. 
Well  I  will  allow  you  the  dung  of  oxen  inftead  of  human 
excrements^  and  with  this  dung  you  fhall  bake  your 
bread.  As  it  is  not  ufual  to  fpreadfuch  fwoet-ments  on 
one'' s  bread,  l^c.  Isfc.  Thus,  fir,  initcad  of  faying 
that  the  bread  was  baked  under  lighted  dung,  you 
alTert,  that  the  bread  was  made  of  dung  !  This  truly 
3S  philofophical  fmcerity  !  .■^nd  you  co-zer  the  bread 
with  thefe  comfits  !  Here  is  wit  indeed  !  Refined  and 
elegant  raillery. 

Miror  Iff  item  indignor.  Yes,  fir,  we  refpefl  you 
too  much,  we  have  too  high  an  opinion  of  you,  "not 
to  be  furprized  at  feeing  you  debale  yourfelf  by  fuch 
flat  and  low  buffoonery  ;  miror  !  What,  is  it  the 
great  writer  Voltaire,  a  man  of  fuch  delicate  feelings 
and  fo  refined  a  tafle,  who  thus  defiles  and  dishon- 
ours his  coinpofitions  i  It  gives  us  pain  to  fuppofe  it^ 
Indiz^mr  ! 

But  if  filthinefs  and  fiatnefs  offend,  falfehood  is 
ftill  more  (hocking.     Here,  fir,   the  rcfped   and  ef- 

Bn.'..<lried  before  the  fun,  by  placing  it  againd  the  walls  of  honfcs,  ami  it    is 

ufcd  r»r  heatintj  ovens  and  dreflinc!  meat,  wl-icre  firing  is  wanting.     Edit. 

The  rranilator  a.l'.li!,  th»t  ill  many  placfs  of  Ireland,  where  firing  is  fcarco, 
fuch  cxpelic:)t«  are  ufcd  for  baking  bread  and  dr>;flii!T  meat- 

(i)  Sec  I'.vilsfojihy  of  H'ftory,  and  Philofjiih.  Diflioiiary.  Article  EiC- 
kicl. 


1264  Lettersof 

teem  we  have  for  you,  ralfes  a  doubt  in  our  minds 
^vhich  you  alone  can  Iblve.  When  you  reprefented 
Ezekiel,  Hterally  eating  turd  for  his  breakfaji,  it  is 
not  our  part  to  bluih  at  it,  and  when  by  the  moft  dif- 
tinguiflied  raillery,  you  fpread  fuch  fivectjuesits  on  his 
bread,  if  in  this  cafe  you  were  ignorant  of  the  fenfe 
of  the  text,  and  of  the  cuitom  to  which  it  alludes, 
what  a  poor  critick  are  you  !  If  on  the  other  hand 
you  were  not  if^norant,  what  diflioneliy  in  your  pro- 
ceeding !  And  if,  in  order  to  make  fools  laugh,  you 
have  merrily,  andon  purpofe,  and  contrary  to  all  in- 
formation, imputed  to  a  refpeftable  perfon,  dirty 
ofTenfive  adions,  how  mean  mufl:  be  your  character  ! 
"W&  fhall  clofe  this  article,  fir,  by  one  of  the  mod 
ingenious  failles  of  your  book,  formerly  called, 
Didionaire  Philofophique^  now  Raifon  par  Alphabet. 

Whoever,  you  fay,  /ikes  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel, 
deferves  to  take  a  breckfcjl  ivith  him-.  How  prettily 
this  is  faid  !  And  how  much  certain  readers  mmlt 
have  been  pleaied  with  this  piece -of  wit  ! 

Dcferves  to  take  a  breakfaji  with  hi?n.  He  certainly 
would  get  but  a  poor  breakfaft  with  Ezekiel.  He 
would  eat  bad  bread  baked  under  the  afhes  of  lighted 
dung,  according  to  the  cuRom  of  thofe  poor  nations 
■who  lived  around  him.  But  he  would  get  a  flill  woric 
breakfafi:  with  you.     He  would  eat  on  his  bread  in- 

ftead  of  fweetmcats. Fie.  This  is  not  Ezekiel's 

breakfaft,  but  one  prepared  by  you.  You  cooked  it 
up  in  order  to  regale  your  readers.  Once  more, 
Fie. 

Whoever  likes  the  prophecies  of  Ezck'tel,  deferves  t9 
take  a  breakfaji  ivifh  him.  And  what  does  he  defcrve, 
who  does  not  think  it  beneath  him,  to  defcend  to 
thefe  flat  coarfe  jefis  ?  O  great  man,  how  mightily  do 
you  fall,  and  how  much  we  pity  you  ! 

Thus,  fir,  expreiTions  which  are  loofe  in  our  mo- 
dern idioms,  but  decent  in  ancient  languages,  vifions 
Vv'hich  you  take  for  realities,  real  actions  which  you 
reprefeiit  in  falfe  and  odious  colours,  he.  &c.  are 
the  great  objedions  which  you  make  to  our  prophets. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  t6^ 

Can  a  man  who  is  fo  intimately  acquainted  with  anti- 
quity  as  you  are,  make  fuch  objeftions  ?  Is  it  not  un- 
fair, fir,  to  feparate  thofe  expreffions,  thofe  types,  &c. 
from  the  times  and  circumftances  in  which  our  pro- 
phets Hved,  from  the  countries  which  they  inhabit- 
ed, from  the  manners  of  the  people  to  whom  they 
fpoke,  from  the  holy  lives  which  they  led,  from  their 
fine  geniufes,  their  difmtereflednefs,  their  courage  ? 
Is  it  not  ridiculous  to  judge  of  their  age  by  ours,  and 
toexpetlto  find  in  them  our  dreffes,  languages  and 
manners  :  You  have  often  afierted  that  this  was  ab- 
furd,  when  will  you  alfert  it  with  fincerity  ? 

§  7.  Whether  the  yewijlj  prophecies  were  fabricated 
after  the  event. 

You  have  Hill  one  objeclion  remaining,  fir  ;  this 
is  to  affert  with  Porphyry  that  our  prophecies  were 
fabricated  after  the  event.  Do  you  chufe  this  as 
your  ftrong  hold,  fir  ?  It  is  the  lead  tenable  poft  of 
them  all. 

ill,  You  cannot  defend  this  pretended  fuppofition 
any  other  way,  than  by  abandoning  moll  of  your  for- 
mer aiTertions.  Indeed  if,  as  you  maintain,  all  our 
prophecies  are  vague,  equivocal,  obfcure,  applicable 
to  every  kind  of  events,  it  is  in  vain  to  have  recourfe 
to  a  fuppofition  advanced  without  proofs.  If  this  pre- 
tended fuppofition  is  looked  on  as  a  medium,  neceffa- 
ry  to  the  explanation  of  our  prophecies,  this  is  a  tacit 
acknowledgement,  that  there  are  fome  of  them,  nay 
many,  ot  llriking  clearnefs.  For  if  only  fome  of 
them  were  clear,  lucky  accidents,  the  art  of  con- 
j-e<!iture,  the  calculation  of  chances  would  fufEciently 
account  for  them. 

2dly,  If  our  prophecies  were  fabricated  after  the  e- 
vent,  by  whom  were  they  fabricated?  Was  it  by  afin- 
gle  forger  ?  Is  it  probable  that  one  forger  could  have 
talents  fuflicient,  for  talents  were  furely  needful,  to 
write  all  the  jewiih  prophecies  from  Mofes  to  Mala- 
clii  ;  that  he  had  knowledge  fiifiicient  of  ancient  and 
more  modern  times,  to  conned  all  thefe  prophecies 
with  the  hidory  of  our  nation,  and  with  that  of  all 


266  Letters     of 

the  neighbouring  nations,  without  falling  into  any  of 
thofe  anachronifms,  which  foon  berray  an  impoftor  ? 
Could  one  forger  have  art  enough  to  conform  himfelf 
fo  exadly  to  the  language,  the  ways  of  thinking,  and 
various  cuftoms  of  thofe  different  age  ,  in  which  he 
was  to  place  thofe  prophecies,  and  their  authors  ? 
"What  fingle  man  could  have  flexibility  of  Ifyle  iuffici- 
ent,  to  be  pure,  forcible  and  noble  with  Mofes,  elegant 
and  fublime  with  Ifaiah,  tender  and  pathetick  with 
Jeremiah,  pompous  with  Ezekiel,  obfcure  with  Hofea, 
rough  and  coarfe  with  Amos  ?  &c.  &c.  What  man 
could  have  tafle  fufiicient  to  infert  thofe  various  tints 
in  his  compofitions  which  diftinguifli  writers  of  dif- 
ferent ages,  and  even  cotemporary  writers  from  one 
another  ?  And  in  fliort,  what  man  could  add  to  all 
thefe  uncommon  gifts  fuch  fublime  ideas  of  the  di- 
vinity, fuch  unerring  principles  with  refped:  to  mo- 
rality, fuch  jufl  notions  of  true  piety,  as  may  be 
found  in  the  writings  of  our  prophets  ? 

Will  you  rather  fay,  that  thefe  prophecies  were  the 
work  of  feveral  forgers  ?  But,  fir,  if  you  increafe 
the  number  of  forgers  without  folving  the  precedi'ng 
difficulties,  you  will  necefl"arily  add  new  ones  to  the 
former.  It  would  be  fiill  harder  to  conceive  how 
fuch  harmony  could  fubfift  between  thefe  different 
compofitions,  with  refpecl  to  hiftory,  language,  man- 
ners, &c.  And  thus  the  fuccefs  of  the  forgery  would 
be  dill  more  doubtful.  Do  you  not  fee  thafthe 
more  accomplices  there  are  in  a  plot,  the  greater 
danger  there  is  of  a  difcovcry  ? 

How  could  all  thefe  forgers  have  fucceeded  in 
keeping  their  common  fecret  ?  And  what  arts  muft 
they  have  ufed  to  get  thofe  writings  adopted  by  the 
Jews,  that  is,  by  a  people  of  all  others,  the  mod  fcru- 
pulouily  attached  to  the  authority  of  their  facred 
writings  ?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  hew  did  it  hap- 
pen that  thefe  cunning  impoftovs  were  weak  enough 
to  leave  in  their  compofitions  thofe  exprcihons  wliich 
ojfend  you,  thofe  aftions  which  affright  you,  thofe 
plain  controdicfions  with  Mofcs,  which  would  JiatU'- 
rally  have  caufed  their  rejection  ?  Did   thefe  impof- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  i^-j 

tors  join  the  highefl:  talents  to  the  greateft  unfkilful- 
nei's  ? 

3d!y,  But,  where  and  when  could  thefe  prophe- 
cies have  been  forged  i  In  Babylon,  Jerufalem,  or 
Alexandria  ? 

In  Babylon  ?  There,  if  we  believe  you,  the  Jews 
Junk  into  the  deepelt  ignorance^  began  to  zvrite.  And, 
there,  jud  as  they  began  to  write,  they  compofed  the 
prophecies  of  Mofes,  David,  Ifaiah,  Jeremiah,  thofe 
their  mailer  pieces  of  poetry  and  eloquence.  1  hefe 
ignorant  Jews  mull  have  had  great  talents,  fir,  Et 
leurs  coups  d'EJfai^furent  des  coups  de  7/iaitre. 

But  grant  them  what  talents  you  pleafe,  could 
they  write  at  Babylon,  events  poflerior  to  their  re- 
turn into  Paledine.?  Such  as  the  dellrudlion  of  the 
Perfian  empire  by  the  king  of  Macedon,  the  rapid 
progrefs  of  this  conqueror,  his  death,  the  divifions 
of  his  fuccelfors,  the  impieties  and  cruelties  prac- 
tifed  by  one  of  them  in  Jerufalem  and  in  Judea,  &c, 
&c. 

In  order,  no   doubt,    to  obviate  thefe   difficulties, 
you  fometimes  fay,  that  thefe  prophecies  were  fabri- 
cated at  Jerufalem,  or  in  Alexandria.  We  have  fome 
Jewifli    compofitions,  fir,    remaining,     which  were 
written,  after  the  captivity,  at  Jerufalem  and  Alexan- 
dria,   the  hook   of  Efdras   for  inflance,  and  that  of 
Wijdom.     Does  not  a  man  of  tafle,  like  you,  fir,  and 
a  learned  Heb»'ean,  perceive  a  difference  between  the 
correcl,  elegant,  noble  ftyle  of  Ifaiah,  and  the  almofl; 
barbarous  language  of  E  dras  ?  Between  the   Greci- 
•    an  turn  of  the  book  of  Wifdom,  and  the  antique  man- 
ner of  our  prophets  ?  In  every    nation,  the  ages  of 
writers  are  diltinguifned  by  thefe  differences  of  flyle. 
You  might  as  well  make    Cicero   a  cotemporary  of 
Peter  Chyrfologus,    or  Virgil  of  Sidonius  Appol'.i- 
naris,  as  place  the  pretended  authors  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Mofes,  Ifaiah,  and  Jeremiah,  in   the  ages  of 
F/dras,   and   of  the    book  of  Wifdoni.     This   would 
be  as  bad  to  fay,  that  Horace,  Livy,  Tacitus,   Ovid, 
&Q.  wsre  written  by  the  monks  of  the  eighth  and 


268  Letters     of 

ninth  centuries.  Would  you  do  that  piece  of  fervice 
to  the  Icriptures,  which  father  llardouin  did  to  the 
claflicks  ? 

If  our  prophecies  had  been  fabricated  at  Jerufalem, 
or  in  Alexandria,  how  could  the  impoftors  of  Jeru- 
falem get  them  received  as  true  ones,  by  the  fchools 
and  fynagogucs  of  Babylon  ?  How  could  the  Jews  of 
Alexandria,  not  only  get  them  adopted  by  their  bre- 
thren of  Babylon  and  Jerufalem.  but  alfo,  inferted  in- 
to the  cannon  of  the  fcripture  already  clofed  ?  And 
this  at  a  time  when  the  Jews  watched  with  fcrupu- 
lous  care,  to  preferve  the  purity  of  their  facred  writ- 
ings, and  whilft  other  refpeclable  works,  fuch  as  To- 
bias, Judith,   &c.  could  not  get  admittance  ? 

Laftly,  fir,  you  have  before  your  eyes  two  events, 
which  mufl  feveral  times  have  (truck  you.  The  di- 
fperfion  of  the  Jewifli  nation,  and  their  wonderful 
prefervation,  notwithftanding  this  difperfion  and  all 
the  calamities  vv^hich  have  accompanied  it.  Thei'e 
things  were  foretold,  and  could  they  be  foretold  by 
the  impoftors  of  Babylon  ?  Or  thofe  of  Jerufalem, 
or  of  Alexandria  ?  Weigh  thefe  confiderations,  fir, 
and  endeavour  to  folve  thefe  difficulties. 
CONCLUSION. 

This,  fir,  is  part  of  the  reflexions  we  made  upon  a 
perufal  of  your  treatife  on  toleration,  and  of  fome 
other  writings  which  are  (i)  afcribed  to  you.  We 
have  perhaps  fometimes  erred  ;  and  (2)  who  does 
not  ?  But  we  fearch  after  truth  with  fincerity.  If 
you  think  us  wrong  deign  to  fet    us  right.     We  do 

(1)  AfcribeJ  t9  you.  We  have  fuppofed,  a5;rceablc  to  common  fame,  that 
the  Philofiphy  af  Hi/itry,  the  D!f{t:fe  de  mon  Omlc  fome  articles  of  the  I'hilofofhi- 
oil  DiSiiiinary,  were  written  by  the  illuflrious  author  whom  we  are  rtfutini:; 
but  we  arc  juft  now  informed,  that  Mr.  Voltaire  difowns  thde  works.  If 
they  were  fallcly  imputed  to  him,  we  bejr  his  pardwn,  for  havinjf  fuppofeJ 
him  the  autlior  of  them.  We  acknowledge  them  to  be  unworthy  of  ai» 
author  of  hiirank.      ylnt. 

(2)  IVho  does  not  ?  If  Mr.  Voltairc,  vhofe  knowledge  knows  no  bound* 
but  thofc  of  the  human  mind,  has  committed  fome  mittakes,  can  we  flatter 
ourfelves  with  never  having  erred,  we  who  are  almoft  always  confined  to  a' 
village,  in  want  of  many  helps,  and  often  of  books,  and  wiio  arc  unable  to 
coiifecrate  any  of  our  time  to  ftudy,  cccpt  fuch  hours  of  Icilure  as  \\c  caa 
fi-cai  away  from  the  aiorciitctfTjry  du:y  of  getting  our  brtud  .'  Uim. 


CERTAIN      JiWS.  26^ 

hereby  engage  to  correal  by  cancel-leaves,  every 
thing  that  ihall  be  difpleafing  to  you  in  this  work, 
and  u-e  zvill  keep  our  word. 

One  thing  we  mu ft  not  conceal,  but  publifli  it  to 
the  world  with  gratitude.  The  Jewifli  nation  has 
fome  obligations  to  you.  You  have  cleared  us,  as 
far  as  in  you  lay,  of  that  crime  which  makes  us  abhor- 
red by  the  whole  chriftian  world.  If  the  Auto  da  Fez, 
of  Madrid  and  Lifbon  are  lefs  bloody,  if  the  feverity 
of  that  awful  tribunal,  which  tries  us,  is  at  length  mi- 
tigated, for  this  we  are  perhaps  more  indebted  to  your 
writing  than  to  any  other  caufe.  You  have  at  lead 
often  exhorted  Chriftians  to  look  upon  usas(i) 
brethren.  Aflume  the  fame  fentiments  towards  us, 
fir,  which  you  wilh  to  inftil  into  others,  and  keep  up 
every  where  in  the  new  edition  of  your  works,  that 
of  moderation  and  benevolence,  which  fhines  forth 
in  fo  many  parts  of  your  writings. 

We  remain,  fir,  with  the  molt  fincere  refped  and 
admiration. 

Your  moft  humble, 

and  obedient  fervants, 

From  the  ne'ighhourhood  J^fip^^  ^^'^  Jonathan, 

of  Utrecht,  Auron  Matatbdiy 

,30th  Oaober,  1771.  David  Wincker. 

End  of  the  First  Volume. 
M  m 

(0  jIt  Irctbrcn.  "  What,"  fays  he,  "  my  hrother  tli  Turl,  iht  Cllntftf 
«*  the  Jezv  Ye»,  certainly,  are  we  not  children  all  of  us,  of  the  fame  father,  rnd 
*'  crcaturesof  the  fame  God  ?"  And  is  it  by  indulging  fuch  fentiments,  that 
the  iliuftrious  writer  h»8  f«  cruelly  sbufcd  the  Jewifk  jiation,  both  aiiticnt 
aad  niedera  \ 


L    E    T    T    E    R    S 

FROM 

CERTAIN       JEW    S. 

OF    THE 

GERMAN  and  POLISH  SYNAGOGUE, 

at  Amsterdam, 

To     Mr.     VOLTAIRE. 

SECOND     VOLUME, 
THIRD    PART 

Considerations    gn    the    Mosaick    Legisla- 
tion. 

LETTER     L 

Th-e  Mofaicli  Laws,  religious   and  moral,    compared 
with  thofe  of  other  ancient  nations^ 


o 


S  I  R, 


UR  ritual  laws  are  not  the  only  ones  you  Lave 
•attacked  in  your  works.  Your  cenfures  extend  to 
ithe  whole  body  of  the  Mofaick  legiflation. 

Let  us  tltereforefurvey  the  other  part^ofthis  code, 
which  have  had  the  misfortune  of  falling  under  your 
^difpleafure.  A  curfory  view  of  it  will  fufficc  to  con- 
vince you,  that  the  ahfurdit^  and  harbarifm  you 
charge  it  with^  proceed  either  from  a  total  ignorance 
of  it,  or  from  the  higheft  injufticef.  You  will  ac- 
knov/ledge  that  v,-hether  we  confider  their  religious 
and  moral  lav/s,  or  their  ftatutcs  civil,  military  and 


palitlcal,  equity,  humanity,  wifdom  (Ir'ne^  forth  ift 
them  with  confpicuous  luff  re.  And  perhaps  you  may 
be  forry,  that  you  have,  without  caufe,  been  driven 
to  fuch  undefervedinveiSlives.  This  efFe6t  will  natu- 
rally be  produced  in  a  generous  miud  like  yours,  by 
the  comparifon  which  ws  are  going  to  make  betweea 
our  laws,  and  thofe  of  the  nations  highelT:  in  fame. 
Let  us  begin  by  our  (i)  religious  and  moral  laws. 
§  I .  Religious  and  moral  laius  of  the  yews. 

There  is  one  God,  fays  the  Hebrew  code,  and 
there  is  but  one.  This  God  alone  deferves  to  be  wor- 
fhipped.  He  is  the  Supreme  Being,  the  necelTary 
origin  of  all  beings,  no  other  is  comparable  to  him. 
He  is  a  pure  Spirit,  immenfe  and  infinite,  (2)  no  bo- 
dily fhape  can  reprefent  him.  He  created  the  uni- 
verieby  his  power,  he  governs  it  by  his  wifdom,  and 
rules  all  its  events  by  his  providence.  Nothing  ef- 
capes  his  Watchful  eye,  all  good  and  evil  proceed 
from  his  equitable  hand,  and  as  every  thing  comes 
from,  fo  every  thing  enters  in  him. 

Miniilers  of  his  fervice  are  appointed  offerings  and 
facrifices  inflituted  ;  but  all  this  pomp  is  nothing'  in 
his  eyes,  if  the  fentiments  of  the  heart  do  not  give  it 
life.  The  worfhip  he  requires  before  every  thing, 
and  above  every  thing,  is  the  acknowledgement  of 
our  entire  dependance  and  of  his  fupreme  dominion, 
thankfulnefs  for  his  benefits,  truil  in  his  mercy,  fear 

(l)  JRiligiviis  and  miral  !atvs  The  ritusl  laws  arc  alfo  religiotis  laws;  hnt 
thel'c  laws  iorined,  as  it  were,  the  body  of  rciig!«ii,  thofc  of  which  wc  are  go- 
ing to  Tiieak,  are  the  foul  of  it.     Edit, 

(a)  No  boJUy  Jb.ipe  <;ttn  rifrefent  htm.  ]~vcn  Parjans  knsw  that  thi«  W3S  in 
Opinion  of  the  Jews.  'I'acitus,  altho'  in  othtr  rtlptCTs  thtir  enemy,  (loe« 
them  tliis  jidlice.  "  'I'he  Jews  "  fay- !ie,  "  vvordiipped  hut  one  God,  whom 
"  they  cfinceivcd  only  in  thought,  a  fovertign,  eternal,  unchangtablc  G«>d. 
"  They  eflccni  tlu  le  profane  who  employ  periftiahle  luh(»ances  to  reprcfen't 
"  the  divinity  under  a  human  form.  For  this  rcafon  they  liave  no  ftatues  ia 
*'  their  temples,  nor  even  in  their  cities.  They  are  ftrangers  to  thi*  nie- 
"  thod  of  flattering  princes,  and  do  not  pay  this  compliment  even  to  o\ir  Cx- 
•*  fars:  Judai  mintcfJ.l  uiiumqut  niimcn  hiteilhtint  :  priphiinn\  qiii  Deum  imagine* 
mortalrhut  miiteriis  in'fpcciis  Loatinum  ejjingunt.  Sutiimu'm  illud  et  cterntm^  t::que 
mulabiU,  ncqtte  intcrJtu'rum.  Jgtur  nulla  Itmulachra  urbibus  Juit,  ncdum  tiinplisjunt  ; 
port  rej>ihu4  l/j:-c  aJiilatio^   ii*n   Cifjrittui  honor, 

V/l\jt  fliall  v\e  ti>ink  of  Mr.  Voltaire,  who  tailing  advantage  of  feme  mc- 
taplioriea!  exprcOion.  of  I'criptiire,  cojly  afl":rnis,  that  tie  Jiiii  beii.-.r</  Godi* 
h  corfforeaH  Is  this  great  man  Icfs  acquaiiittd  with  the  Jtwa,  or  ia  he  kli  c- 
^ujtaljlo  towardi  the;u  than  even  i*a^.i:i$  .'     Aut, 


C£RTA1>T       Je"WS.  27;J 

aui  love.  I  am  the  Lord  i/jy  God,  thou  JhrJ.t  have 
none  other  Gods  before  ?}ie.  Thou  Jhcilt  not  make  unto 
tbyfelf  any  graven  images,  A}id  thov  jhalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  xvith  all  thine  heart,  and  ivith  ail  thy 
foul,  and  (i)  ijcith  all  thy  Jlrength.  Thefe  are  true 
and  fublime  ideas,  and  which  eminently  dillinguilh 
the  jewiili  from  all  ancient  legiflators. 

What  purity  and  beauty  in  his  morality  !  Is  there 
a  vice  which  it  doth  not  ieverely  condemn  ?  It  is  not 
fafficient  that  actions  are  forbidden,  even  defires  are 
prohibited.  (2)  Thou  Jii alt  not  covet.  He  not  only 
requires  perfect  equity,  probity  untainted,  faithful- 
nefs,  jufticc,  the  molt  exact  honefty,  but  he  v/ould 
have  us  befides  to  be  humane,  compaflionate,  chari- 
table, ready  to  do  unto  others  what  we  could  wifii 
they  would  do  unto  us.  (3)  Thou  Jhalt  love  thy  neigh^ 
hour  as  thyfclf.  In  fhort,  whatever  can  make  a  man 
refpeitable  in  his  own  eye^,  and  dear  to  his  fellow 
creatures,  whatever  can  infure  the  peace  and  happi- 
nefs  of  fociety,  is  there  placed  in  the  lift  of  duties. 

Is  it  aftonifhing  then  to  hear  Mofeshimfelf,  flruck 
with  admiration  at  the  excellence  of  thefe  laws, 
breaking  out  in  the  following  tranfport :  And  ivhat 
nation  is  there  fo  great  that  hath  Jlatutes  and  judg- 
ments Jo  righteous  as  all  this  law  "xhich  1  Jet  before 
you  this  day  ? 

§    2.   Comparifon  of  thefe  laws  with  thefe  of  ancient 

nations. 

Where  could  you  find  in  all  antiquity,  fir,  reli- 
gious inftitutions  more  pure,  and  moral  precepts 
more  conformable  to  the  feelings  of  nature,  the  light 
of  reafon,  and  the  facred  rules  of  decencv  and  virtue  ? 
Recal  to  your  mind  the  laws  of  the  moll  celebrated 
ancient  nations  :  what  falfe  and  whimfical  ideas  of 
the  divinity  !  AVhat  objects  of  worfhip  !  What  ex- 
travagant, impure,  cruel  rites  !  What  impious  cpi- 

(t^   IVHb    all  thy  fi'crgtb.     See    Exodus,  loth    ch-  and    Deuteronomy, 
5.     Aut. 

(1)    thou  fo  ih  not  covft  ■      Seeltxndus,    cli-    20.      .ii^t 

(3)    Tlmujhdit  hv:  tli^  nr^juour^    'Jr.  J.eviticu;,  cii.    I9.      Aui- 


Q74  Letters     qf 

nioii<?,  fcandalous  excelTes,  barbarous  cuftoms,  aui* 
thorized  or  tolerated  by  thefe  boafled  Icgiflators  1 
From  the  heavenly  bodies  v/hich  give  us  light,  down 
to  the  plants  which  grow  in  our  gardens  ;  from  the 
man  celebrated  for  his  talents  or  his  crimes,  down  to 
the  venomous  reptile  which  ( i )  creeps  under  the 
grafs,  every  thing  had  its  worfliippers.  Here  behold 
a  facrifice  of  female  modeftv,  there  human  blcod 
flows  upon  the  altars,  and  the  deareft  victims  expire 
in  thofe  flames  (2)  which  fuperftition  has  lighted  up. 
A  little  farther  violence  is  offered  to  nature  by  bru- 
tal love,  and  humanity  debafed  by  unworthy  and^ 
barbarous  treatment.  Every  where  the  people  live 
in  fiiocking  ignorance,  and  the  philofophers  (3)  in 
error  and  uncertainty.  Let  us  draw  a  veil  over  this 
mortifying  pidure  of  human  blindnefs,  which  many 

(t)  Crcip!  unJtr  thi  grnfs.  Many  writers,  even  amonj  Heathens,  have 
■charged  the  Egyptians  with  worfhipping  plants  and  animals.  ^I'u  nefiit,  fays 
Tiivenal,  qaalia  dtmcns  Bgyptui portenta  colat  ?  &c.  Others  endeavour  to  juftify 
them.  They  fay,  that  this  was  rather  a  civil  and  political  practice,  than  a 
yeligious  worfhip  ;  fuch  as  the  attention  of  the  Dutch  to  preferve  ftorks, 
which  It  is  furbiJden  to  kill  ii  Holland  under  the  feverefl  penalties  This 
might  he  believed  with  refpeA  to  ufeful  animals,  but  what  political  motive 
could  engage  the  Egyptians  to  worlhip  hurtful  animals,  fuch  as  Crocodiles, 
/fee.  Wc  th^nk  this  worlhip  very  fimilarto  that  which  the  Africans  pay  at 
rhistin-ie  to  their  *  Fetiches,  and  to  proceed  from  the  fame  fup  rftition  an(i 
filly.  CJiion  the  whole,  even  if  the  Egyptians  were  not  chargeable  with 
f hi.'!,  it  i  £  undoubted  that  many  ancient  nations  had  obje<3s  of  worlhip  as  ridi- 
culous as  thofc  of  the  African  negroes.  We  can  produce  the  authority  cveu 
fif  Mr    Voltaire  for  this.     Aut, 

*  Fet'uht  is  a  general  term  for  the  ohjc<Sls  of  worfliip  of  the  negroes  on  the 
c-al  of  Guinea.      'TranJluUr. 

(a)  Whhb  fuperfit'on  has  lighted  rip.  Wc  intend  to  give  proofs  of  all  theft 
f^(5lsin  the  fsquel.     Ant. 

{■\)  In  error  and  uncertainty.  \T''e  doubt  not  hu»  a  body  of  wife  maxims 
j>nd  excellent  mora!  precepts  mi^^ht  be  formed  by  piiftin^!  together  the  beft 
thin-TR,  which  the  heathen  Icgiflators  and  phi  ofophers  havcfaid  However 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  thefe  maxims  and  precep-s  are  found  in  their  v.-rit- 
j  ITS  accompanied  with  error  and  uncertainty,  not  only  with  regard  to  thofe 
preat  truths,  whicli  are  the  only  follrl  bafis  of  virrne,  the  eriftcnce  of  a  God, 
li'c;  iiiftiC'.' an  1  providen'-e,,  the  liberty  of  man,  &c.  But  even  with  rcard 
t  )  the  nn)ft  elT.nrial  duties  of  morality.  And  it  fliould  not  be  matter  of  Cur- 
iirize,  that  the  ancient  philofuph-TS,  in  tlie  midft  of  hrathen  darknef-;,  fell 
iito  thefe  errors,  when  wc  fi.e  the  moderns,  ahho'  en'ightened  by  the  torch 
tf  revelation,  ca'Iino;  in  quetion,  attacking  theR-  truths.  an«l  evrn  wbilft 
tliry  arc  contiiiuilly  talkuig  o(  morility  and  vir'ne,  fapping  their  f.•u^^afi- 
r.'is-  The  pernicious  opinions,  th"  daneerons  fydcms  by  which  tht-y  have 
d  izzled  and  difcredited  thi?  a-^e,  ave  the  ivoO  convincing  prof>f  that  man 
VkantD  another  guide  be  fides  phi lofophy  to  lead  hinr.  to  virtue.     Aut. 


CERTAIN     Jews,  275 

others  before  us  have  traced  out.  But  -whilfl  we 
are  turning  our  eyes  from  thefe  difmal  objects,  per- 
mit us  to  afk  you,  why  fo  many  miftakcs  among  na- 
tions fo  wife,  and  fo  much  wifdom  among  the  igno- 
rant and  barbarous  Hebrews?  Does  it  not  proceed 
from  this,  that  all  other  nations  had  only  the  weak 
and  glimmering  light  of  human  reafon  for  a  guide, 
and  that  among  the  Hebrews  a  fuperior  reafon  had 
enlightened  its  darknefs  and  fixed  its  uncertainties  ? 
We  fhall  infifl:  no  longer,  fir,  on  our  religious 
and  moral  laws  ;  they  are  too  well  known,  and  their 
fuperiority  over  all  ancient  legiflatures  is  too  remar- 
kable to  require  any  further  difcuffion. 


We  remain,  &c. 


ifjS  Letters      of 

LETTER     IL 


0/  the  political  laws  '  Mc/es-. 


w. 


E  are  not  perfeclly  acquainted  with  thefe 
laws,  fir,  we  confefs  it  ;  but  fo  much  as  the 
abridged  recital  of  our  hiftory  difcovers  to  us, 
fuffices  to  give  us  an  high  idea  of  the  legifla- 
tor,  and  of  the  plan  of  government  he  had  form- 
ed. 

§     I.      Plan  of  government    traced  out    by    Mo- 

feu 

At  the  head  of  this  government  I  fee  a  Sove- 
reign the  mod  worthy  of  an  entire  obedience,  It 
is    that    God  who  is  the  object   of  worfliip  in  it. 

This  God,  mailer  of  the  univerfe,  but  elect- 
ed king  of  Ifrael  by  the  unanimous  and  volun- 
tary fuffrages  of  a  people,  who  owed  to  him  their 
liberty  and  property,  holds  his  court  in  the  midfl 
of  them.  The  fons  of  Levi  are  his  guards  and 
officer?  ;  the  tabernacle  his  palace.  There  he  in- 
terprets his  laws,  ilfues  his  orders,  and  declares  peace 
or  war. 

As  fupreme  monarch,  and  at  the  fame  time,  the 
objedt  of  worfhip,  he  unites  at  once  civil  and  religious 
authority.  Thus  the  ftate  and  the  church,  io  dif- 
tind  elfewhere,  here  eoalefce.  Thefe  two  powers, 
fo  far  from  clafliing,  mutrally  fupport  each  other, 
and  the  divine  authority  impreffes  a  facred  charac- 
ter, even  on  the  civil  laws,  and  by  confequence  an 
influence  which  they  never  had  in  any  other  govern- 
ment. 

Under  Jehovah,  a  chief,  his  lieutenant  and  vice- 
roy, governs  the  nation  conformably  to  his   laws. 


CERTAIN      Jews.,  277 

He  is  a  leader  in  war,  a  judge  in  peace. 
Death  is  the  penalty  for  difobedience  (1)  ^o  his  or- 
ders. Yet  his  authority  is  neither  deipotic  nor  ar- 
bitrary. A  fenate,  formed  of  the  moft  difHnguifhed. 
members  of  all  the  tribes,  is  appointed  (2)  for  his 
council.  He  advifes  with  them  in  matters  of  im- 
portance, and  if  there  are  national  concerns  to  be 
difcufled,  the  whole  coiigregation,  that  is  (3)  the 
affcmbly  of  the  people^  or  to  fpeak  according- 
to  the  moderns,  the  Jlates  are  convoked,  matters 
are  laid  before  them,  they  determine,  the  chief 
executes. 

The  fame  order  fubfifls  in  the  different  tribe?. 
Each  has  its  prince,  its  fenate,  its  heads  of  fami- 
lies. Under  thefe  .latter  were  the  heads  of  thofe 
branches  which  fprang  from  them,  and  under  them 
the  leaders  of  thoufands,  hundreds,  (4)  fifties, 
tens,  &c.  each  of  them  invefted,  according  to  his 
place,    with  civil  and  military  power. 

By  thefe  wife  regulations  a  powerful  militia, 
quickly  raifed,  marches  under  its  leader  as  one  man  ; 
juftice  is  adminiflered,  good  order  is  maintained, 
fuhje£i3  are  kept  within  bounds,  the  authority  of 
their  fuperiors  is  confined  within  jufl  limits,  all 
parts  of  the  government  (5)  fupport  and  balance 
each  other,   and  a  bleffed  harmony  prevails  thro*  the 

N  n 

(i)    T»  his    orders.      See  JoJhua,    chap.     i.     vcrfes    i6,    17,     &c. 
Aut. 

('2)  For  bis  teunc'l.  Sec  Numbers,  chap.  11,  ver  1 7.  ch.  31,  v.  r 
and  2.  Jolhiia,  ch.  19,  v.  15.  ch.  17,  v.  7.  ch.  22.  v.  13 
and  14.  ■  I'lic  authority  ot  judge  among  the  Mehrev/s  was  pretty  nearly 
r<jiiiil  to  that  of  tlic  confuls  at  Rome,  the  kings  at  Lacedemon,  the 
fuff:tcs  at  Carthage.  Governments  which  were  not  by  any  mean* 
butiiiious.      yii/t. 

(3)  I'l't  ajfemhly  of  the  people.  Thefe  alTcmblies,  under  Mofcs  when 
the  Ht'brcws  formed  a  body  of  troops,  bore  fonie  refeniblance  to  the  af- 
fr;niblics  of  the  (ir«fcks,  dcfcribed  in  the  Iliad,  and  to  the  afTemblies  of 
the  people  at  Athens,  Lacedemon  and  Rome.  It  is  probable  tliut  fonic 
time  after,  tliey  were  compofed  oidy  of  the  deputies,  and  rcprefenta- 
tivc*  of  the  people,  as  tl>c  houfe-  of  comniiiiis  of  England,  aad  the 
flates  of  Holland  are,    &c.     Edu. 

(4)      Qf  fifties^     tens.     &c.     See     Deuteronomy,     ch.     16,      v.      18, 
Aut. 

Ci)     SiipPort  anl  bj'unce  each  o'.her.     In  this    jovernnient  t*   man  could 


lyS  Letters     of 

ilate.    Is  this,  fir,  a  plan  of  government  worthy  only 
of  an  akfurd  and  barbarous  IcgiJIator. 

§   2.     Precautions  taken   to   maintain  union  amo7ig 

the  tribes. 

Divifion  among  the  tribes  could  alone  deftroy 
this  harmony,  and  therefore  the  wifeft  precauti- 
ons are  taken  by  the  legiflator  to  keep  them  ever 
clofely  united. 

Already  a  community  of  origin  and  of  blood 
united  them  ;  thefe  ties  are  ftill  falter  bound  by  reli- 
gion, they  have  the  fame  God,  the  fame  worfnip, 
the  fame  minifters  of  worfhip,  one  altar,  one 
temple,  and  they  are  bound  to  refort  to  it  from  all 
quarters. 

Even  this  is  not  fufficient,  the  tribe  of  Levi  fcat- 
tered  amongft  the  others  without  being  particular- 
ly attached  to  any  one  of  them,  announces  the  lame 
doctrine,  and  teaches  the  fame  law.  And  if,  to 
iliortcn  the  length,  and  leffen  the  cods  of  fuits, 
each  tribe,  (i)  each  city,  has  its  judges  for  expe- 
diting private  affairs,  where  the  fenfe  of  the  law 
js  clear,  there  is  befides  a  fupreme  tribunal  appoint- 
ed to  determine  (2)  nice  queftions,  and  the  dif- 
putes   between  tribe  and  tribe.    This  national  court 


■have  fortune  or  power  fufficient  to  nfurp  f«v«rei«;n  authority,  and  to 
make  attempts,  againft  puhlr<*']iber.  ...  Bcfiries,  in  fuch  an  attenipt, 
the  judge  wnuld  have  I)ecn,ft<ipt  by  the  princes  of  the  tribes,  and.  thcfe, 
l)y  the  judge  and  heads  of  famili(;s,Scc.  The'  priells  andLcvites.whoni  tht  dig-, 
jiity  of  their  office,  and  their  fuperior  knowledge  nii^jht  have  raifed 
ahovc  tlie  others,  were  rendered  dependant  on  them  bccaufe  they  pof- 
itffed  no  1  nds,  &c.  The  more  we  refledl  on  this  form  of  gi>v«riiniei)t, 
the  more  we  (hall  find  it  wifely  calculated  for  the  fuppcrtof  common 
Jiberty-       Edit. 

(i")  £a{b  city  has  its  juilges.  Scc  Deuteronomy  ch.  16,  v.  18.  'Jwln" 
and  officers  Jhalt  tbou  make  tbcc  in  all  thy  *ates  iibicl)  the  Lord  lly  Cod 
^ivclb  thee,   &C-      Aut- 

(a)  Nice  queflions.  See  Deuteronomy,  ch.  17,  v.  8  and  9.  If  tiers 
erife  a  matter  too  hard  for  thee,  in  judgment,  then  Jlmlt  thou  arife  and  get  tlee  up 
into  the  place  ivhich  the  Lord  thy  God  Jball  cbnoje.  And  tbo'i  fiolt  come  unto  the 
friefls,  the  Levites  and  unto  the  judge  that  Jhall  be  in  tltofc  days.  Aad 
thuu  Jhalt  do  according  to  the  f entente  ■which  they  cf  tint  place  Jkntl  Jheiu  thee, 
And  tht  man  that  -uiiU  not  beat  ien  unto  tie  (riejl  tr  unto  ibe  Judje,  nc'i  ibt^i 
man  JhcU  dif,    !^c.     Aut. 


CERTAIN    Jews.  ^^9 

tlccicles  without  appeal,  and  as  its  jurirjiction 
extends  to  all  parts  of  the  (late,  it  maintains 
union  amongft  them,  as  well  as  juaicc  and  or- 
der. 

For  this  purpofe  were  thofe  fevere  laws  ena£l:-> 
ed  againfl  foreign  worihip,  againfl  thofe  cities 
or  tribes  which  would  revolt  or  fcparate.  You 
cenfured  the  feverity  of  thofe  laws,  merely  be- 
caufe  you  did  not  know  (i)  the  political  reafons 
of  them. 

We  rcquefl  you  will  anfwer  us  this  queTiion, 
Have  the  prefent  governments,  which  moli:  ntarly 
refemble  that  of  Moles,  known  how  to  place  fuch 
powerful  bonds  of  union  between  the  parts  which 
compofe  them. 

§    3,      Hqiu  dear  thi^  gGVcrnmcnt  inujl   have  been 

io  the  people. 

If  the  great  art  of  the  legillator  is  to  attach  the 
fubjed:  to  the  form  ofgcvcrnment  wliich  he  elia- 
bliihes,  what  form  in  the  w^orld  could  have  more 
charms  for  the  Hebrews  than  this  ?  No  other 
ever  came  nearer  to  the  appointment  of  nature. 
It  was  the  authority  of  the  father  of  a  family  over 
his  children,  that  of  the  children  over  the  grand-chil- 
dren, that  of  the  grand-children  over  the  great 
grand-children,  &c.  All  of  thefe  keptupinfome 
degree  their  rights  of  nature,  and  thefe  refpeda- 
ble     and     darling    rights    were   transferred    from 


(l)  'the  pdUlical  r<nfons  »f  them,  tf  canhot  he  dfnied  t'nat  liefijffs  tfitf" 
zeal  for  rslifjion  and  juftice,  this  political  objed  was  one  of  the  motives 
of  that  feverity,  which  was  intended  agaiiilt  the  triUes  beyond  Jordan, 
and  which  was  \>\\t  in  pradice  againft  the  I3ct!Jamiccs,  the  Ephramites, 
&c.  Perhaps  pafTion  had  its  fh:ire,  but  the  bent  of  the  law  vras  not  Id's 
wife.  The  more  union  was  necelTary  ainon^i  the  tribes,  the  more  fevcre- 
ly  a  fpirit  of  divifion  Wis  to  be  pnniflied.  Tliis  o!'fcrvation  alrme  (hcw« 
how  vain  and  ill  placed  are  the  illuitrious  author's  dec'amations  upo:i 
thefe  two  fatfls,  ajjsinft  the  want  if  toleration  for  foreign  wnrfhji>. 
Js  he  fo  little  acquainted  with  our  liiflory,  as  not  to  have  mada  tliis 
reflexion  ?  And  will  he  henceforward  think  that  there  is  much  r*a- 
fiiii  for  hisjc.ft,  that  the  l-'phramite*  were  flangbtcrc-d  bccaufc  they  cuulJ 
net   pronounce  the  word /c/.'^c/f/,^     A"!. 


iiSo  Letters     of 

elder  to  elder,    down  to  the    mofl:  didant     gene- 
rations. 

In  this  domeflick  and  family-government,  if  wc 
may  ule  thefe  expreffions,  places  of  pov.er  and 
authority  were  not  titles  to  plunder,  cr  revenue 
employments  ;  every  thing  was  free.  Therefore  but 
light  tributes  were  exaded,  which  w^ere  appoint- 
ed by  law,  and  the  ufes  they  were  applied  to 
foftened  the  rigour  of  exactions.  Some  of  thefe 
taxes  were  appointed  (i)  to  help  the  indigent, 
and  (2)  to  keep  up  public  worfhip  ;  others  allotted  to 
the  minifters  of  this  worfiiip,  as  a  juft  recompence  for 
their  fervices,  and  as  a  proper  indemnification  for  their 
not  having  had  any  fliare  (3)  in  the  diftribution 
of  lands. 

§   4.     Wijdom    of  thefe  laivs   in  the  diftribution    of 

lands. 

The  diflrlbution  of  lands  has  been  looked  upon 
by  all  ancient  nations  as  a  maRer-piece  in  poli- 
ticks. Where  were  they  more  wifely  diftributed 
than  (4)  in  our  legifiator  ?  The  inflitutions  of 
the  famous  Spartan  legifiator,  fo  much  extolled 
by  the  Greek  writers,  muft  yield  the  palm,  in  this 


(1)  To  help  tls  tiii'igcni.  Such  va?  the  tithe  of  the  th.Ird  year,  it  waf 
given  in  particular  to  the  poor.  When  iiau  ln(l  made  an  ci.d  of  tilhirg, 
all  the  iribci  of  thine  increaje,  the  third  \car ,  -zihich  is  the  year  of  tithing, 
and  hafl  given  it  unto  the  Le-uite,  the  Urai'ger,  the  fatherlejs  avd  the  tiii/cii', 
that  they  may  eat  -within  thy  gates  and  be  J, lied.  Dcuteroiioniy,  ch.  26.  v. 
12.      Aut. 

(2)  To  keep  up  publich  ivcrfoip.  Every  Ifraelite  paid  annually  to  the  fanc- 
tuary  ha'f  a   ihtkel.     Aut. 

(3)  In  the  diftribution  of  lands.  The  /.Imighty  faid  to  /aron. 
Thou  Jlialt  have  no  inJicritancc  in  their  land,  I  am  thy  part  and  thine  it  h(ri— 
tance  among  the  children  of  Ifraet,  I  have  given  the  children  of  Leiii  ail  the 
tenth  in  Ifrael  for  an  inheritance.  ]S!umbcrs,  ch.  18.  v.  20,  and  21.  It  is 
verv  remarkable  tliat  Mofws,  who  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  gave  no 
lands  to  tlie  priefts  ot-  l.evites.  rhis  piece  of  policy  was  in  direft  op- 
polition  to  that  of  Egypt,  where  the  pricfls  poliefled  fo  much  land  frc« 
of  taxes,     uriut, 

•  .     (4)    /"  our  Icg'flaiure,      Jlnd ye  Jhall  divide  the  l^nd   hy  lu  fr  an  inheritanrt 
unfing  your  fujniHei^   and  to  the -more    ye  Jhall  give  more  Inheritance^     and   to    the 
Jc-iL'cr  y(  jla'l  give  leji  inheritance,      f.very  man^s  inheiitancc  Jhall  be  in  the  plact 
ivhcre  his  lot  faikth.      J^umbei'S,   ch.  2)^.  V.  ^4.     Aut. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  aSi 

refpe<!t,  to  the  Jewifli  lefjjiflator.  In  the  dlftribu- 
tion  appointed  by  this  great  man,  every  one  out 
•  of  fix  hundred  thoufand  foldiers,  introduced  into 
the  land  of  Canaan,  was  to  get  a  portion  of  ground 
fufiicient  to  maintain  him  and  his  family  in  decent 
affluence.  Mofes  is  not  fatisfied  with  infuring 
to  them  the  pofTeffion  of  thefe  lands  by  the  laws 
of  men,  as  other  legiflators  did,  he  confecrated  it  by 
religion.  According  to  thefe  principles,  Jehovah 
is  the  only  Lord  in  the  land  v/hich  (i)  he  gives  to 
the  Hebrews.  They  are  all  his  vaflals,  and  their 
lands  are  fo  many  fiefs  which  they  hold  immediately 
from  God,  and  from  him  only.  To  fei?:e  thefe  lands 
or  difpoflefs  the  tenants,  v/ould  have  been  an  a£i:  of 
high  treafon. 

But  thefe  fiefs  are  not  granted  to  them  without 
conditions  of  fervice.  One  of  the  principal  of  thefe 
is  military  fervice.  (2)  On  this  condirion  merely 
they  poil'efs  them.  By  this  means  the  (late  was  al- 
ways fupplied  with  a  militia  of  fix  hundred  thoufand 
men,  made  up,  not  of  adventurers  prefled  into  the 
fervice,  or  drawn  into  it  through  want  or  libertinifm, 
but  of  citizen^,  who,  befides  their  liberties  and  lives, 
had  (3)  a  good  property  to  defend  ;  thefe  forces 
were  fufiicient  to  refift,  not  only  the  fmall  nations  in 
the  neighbourhood,  but  even  th*;  powerful  empires  of 
E:jypt,  Aifyria,  and  Babylon,  efpecially  in  a  country 
which  was  on  all  fides  diflicult  of  accefs. 

Although  this  plan  of  government  appears  abfurd 
to  you,  yet  the  wife  and  learned  chancellor  Bacon, 

(l)  He  g'tnfs  to  the  Hebretct.  For  the  l.ind m  m-re,  fays  {he  lj<riri,f<<r ye  are 
Prangers  and fojourners  ivith  m;,  that  is  vaflals,  copy-holders,  to  whom  1  grant 
part  of  my  dtiniains.     See  Leviticus,  ch     ^   ,  v.  aj.     ylut. 

(l)    On  l/jii  Con. !il!rn,  Sec  Lov/m^n.      Aut. 

(3)  A gooii f)roj-rty .  If  Mofcs's  ]'ian  had  bffn  exerrtet',  every  one  of  tJie 
fn  liundred  thoiil.ind  Ifraclitcs.  capable  of  bearing-  arms,  wonid  have  had, 
UPon  a  medium,  a!)oiit  tvventy  two  acres  «if  land,  aiiilr^i^linir  niore  than  three 
millions  nine  hundred  thoufand  aercs,  whicli  were  rcf^rved  fir  piiblick  ufes. 
Fur  according  to  thi-.  prefciit  computation,  the  land  pr-niilcd  to  the  Ifraelites 
was  to  contain  fourteen  miliinrs  nine  hundred  ami  fixty  tlnuifiiid  acres,  bee 
the  dilTsrtation  of  the  Uarnsd  Lrownian  bO  xXa  civU  polity  of  ihc  Helretv* 
A-ut. 


iS2  Letters     o? 

xvhofe  political  knowledge,  we  may  fuppofe,  was  as 
great  as  yours,  (i)  found  it  admirable. 

§   5*   ^Viflom  of  that  law  ivhicb  made  their  lands  urt' 

alienable. 

It  is  not  fuflicient  to  have  formed  this  noble  plan. 
In  order  to  render  it  permanent,  the  legiflator  de- 
clares that  thefe  lands,  and  the  farms  necefiary  for 
their  improvement,  fhallbe  abfolutely  (2)  unaliena- 
ble. They  were  given  to  the  fathers,  and  mud  pafs 
to  the  children,  and  remain  for  ever  in  the  fame  tribes 
and  families.  This  law  was  the  eifecl  of  deep  and 
wife  policy.  It  perpetuated  all  the  advantages  of  the 
fird  diflribution,  and  by  confining  the  citizen  to  his 
original  fpot,  it  kept  up  in  him  the  love  of  induftry 
and  frugality.  It  repreffed  avarice,  it  prevented  the 
ambitious  fchemes  of  great  land-holders,  and  the  op- 
preiTion  of  the  poor,  jealoufies,  difcontent,  faftions, 
and  all  thofe  evils  which  other  commonwealths  vain- 
ly endeavoured  to  remedy  by  their  Agrarian  laws. 

This,  fir,  is  a  flight  fl^etch  of  Mofes's  plan  of  go- 
vernment. Even  by  this  poor  defcription,  confidcr 
whether  you  have  juftly  given  the  epithet  o^  abfurd 
to  our  political  laws,  and  whether  our  misfortunes 
are  not  rather  owing  to  our  infringement  of  thofe  laws 
than  to  their  pretended  abfurdily. 

A  little  equity  would  rather  incline  you,  infl:ead  of 
cenfuring  our  political  laws,  to  admire  fo  wife  a  form 
of  government,  founded  in  fo  remote  antiquity. ' 

We  are,  he. 

(l)  fovni  It  admtrahh.     See  liis  Hiftcry  of  Henry  VII.     Ait. 

(a)  Unaltenabh.  The  land  Jhall  not  be  fold  for  e-vcr,  fur  the  land  Is  Wine,  ru'tttt 
the  Lard.  I^eviticus,  ch,  25,  v.  23.  We  fhall  obit rve  here,  that  the  houf- 
fs  in  cities  niijjht  be  alienated.  If  they  were  not  redeemed  within  the  year 
they  remained  the  property  of  the  piircbafer.  This  difTereiice  between  pro- 
perty in  city  niid  country,  i?  entirely  in  favour  of  agriculture,  and  is  fuiScient 
to  fliew  the  eftceni  which  the  legillator  had  for  it,  an  efteem  which  he  wart 
ed  to  imprefs  0:1  the  Hebrews  too.  The  pmdudls  of  T^jriculturc  are  the  on- 
ly thinj^s  of  true  vane.  Every  wife  (rovernniert  will  deem  them  Juch,  and 
will  endeavour  to  multiply  laiid-hoIJcrs.*    Ant, 


G' 


CERTAIN     Jews.  283 

LETTER     III. 

Of  the  7niUtaty  la"<vs  of  the  ^czis. 


U  R  military  laws,  fir,  are  chiefly  the  objc6ls  of 
your  cenlure.  1  hey  appear  to  you  inhuman,  barba- 
rous J  and  we  are  not  iurprized  at  it,  bccauie  you. 
judge  of  them  according  to  your  prejudices,  and  the 
cultoms  of  your  own  country  ;  but  confider  them 
impartially,  and  you  will  obferve  in  them  a  tender- 
nels  towards  the  citizen,  and  even  towards  the  ene- 
my, which  other  nations  were  flrangers  to  in  thofe 
ancient  times,  and  which  modern  nations  have  not  al- 
ways imitated. 

jj    I.  Teiidernefs  of  the   Jeiinfi  military   lau's  to- 
wards  the  citizen. 

By  thefe  laws,  as  well  as  by  thofe  of  all  nations 
at  that  time,  every  citizen  able  to  bear  arms  was  a 
foldier.  But  the  Jcwilh  government  paid  an  indul- 
gent and  wife  regard  to  the  tendernefs  of  the  citizen 
for  objedls  naturally  dear  to  all  men,  and  ordered, 
that  when  the  troops  were  alfembled,  the  leaders 
fhould  make  the  following  declaration.  What  man  is 
there  that  hath  built  a  new  hon/e,  and  hath  not  de- 
dicated it  ?  And  what  man  is  he  that  hath  plant- 
ed a  vineyard,  and  hath  not  yet  eaten  of  it  ?  And 
what  man  is  he  that  hath  betrothed  a  wife,  and 
hath  not  taken  her  ?  Let  hiin  go  and  return  unto 
his  hovfe,  Icajl  he  die  in  battle,  Deuteronomy, 
ch.   20,  V.   5. 

They  alfo  permitted  thofe  that  Vitxz  fearful  and 
faint-hear  ted  10  retire  (  i )  before  the  engagement.  This 
was  alfo  a  wifeinflitution.  By  this  condefcenfion  to 
thele  weak  men,  they  were  prevented  from  di (heart- 
ening their  brethren,  and  it  taught  the  combatants 
to  conhde  lefs  in  their  numbers  than  their  valour, 

(i)  Btf at e the  engage" tnt .  Thofe  who  thus  retired  before  the  en^ajremen^ 
wtrc  employed  in  the  ftrvice  of  the  combatants.  They  were  ordered  to  re. 
pair  the  roa Js,  and  carry  the  bpggag^j  ^'^'  &c.     Lilt. 


a84  Letters     of 

and  in  the  protedion  of  the  Lord  of  Hofls,  of  whom 
they  had  experienced  fo  many  fortunate  inftances. 

If  th-ey  returned  vi(Slorious,  in  order  to  bring 
them  back  to  more  tender  feelings,  after  the  rage  of 
battle,  the  law  ordered  that  they  fliould  conlider 
themfelves  as  polluted  by  this,  perhaps  necefTary 
flaught:r,and  unworthy  ofthus  appearinginthecamp 
of  the  Almighty  ;  they  were  therefore  to  employ  an 
whole  day  in  purifying  themfelves  befure  they  went 
into  it. 

Such  fir,  were  the  difpofitions  of  this  barbarous 
leeifiature  towards  the  citizen. 

§  2.  Militiiry  laws  of  the  Jeivs  co7iccrning  the  ene- 
VLj.  The  order  for  demanding  fathfa6lion  before  a  dtcla- 
rai'ion  of  war.     Prohibitions  agoinji  unnccejp-.ry  -w^Jii. 

Let  us  now  confider  the  regulations  appointed  with 
regard  to  the  enemy.  We  fliall  not  fpeak  here  of  the 
wars  of  the  Lord  againfl:  profcribed  nations  ;  this 
was  an  exception  to  our  military  laws,  of  which,  per- 
haps, we  may  fay  fomething  hereafter.  We  confine 
ourfelvci  at  prefent  to  the  wars  of  the  nation  againft 
other  nations.  In  thefe  our  government  ordered'us 
toacl  with  fuch  moderation,  as  would  certainly  have 
flruck  you,  if  before  you  criticized  our  laws,  you 
had  taken  the  pains  to  read  them  carefully. 

In  the  firft  place,  the  law  forbad  us  to  undertake 
any  war  through  caprice,  ambition,  or  fpirit  of  con- 
queH:,  as  fo  many  kings  and  nations  have  done,  thofe 
illuflrious  renowned  in  your  hiftories.  We  were  al- 
lov/ed  to  take  up  arms  only  to  defend  ourfelves  againil 
uniult  invafions,  or  to  procure  fatisfadion  for  wrorgi 
that  had  been  done,  and  we  were  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  enemy's  country  until  fatisfaftion  had  been 
refufed. 

But  even  then  the  law  prohibited  all  that  unnecef- 
fary  wafle  and  havock,  which  are  authorifed  by  the 
laws  of  war  (i)  among  other  nations  ;   it  forbad  us, 

(\)  Am<,n^vlLer  nailom.  Even  thofe  who  fufFcrcd  this  wafie,  rather  look- 
ed'up'>n  it  us  a  niisloruiiit'    th^n  a   piece  of  iiijuilicc,  Uri  fi-;^'Ui,jJir'iiUcia 


CERTAIN     Jews.  285 

to  cut  down  fruit  trees,  or  to  fell  even  thofe  which 
did  not  bear  Iruit,  except  where  there  was  an  abfo- 
lute  necelTity.  Are  the  irees^  the  law  fays,  enemks 
which  can  fight  againji  you^  Jo  that  you  mujl  cut  them 
down  ?  Ihefe  furely,  fir,  are  net  barbarous  rules 
and  ordinances.  We  think  they  might  excite  a  blulh 
in  the  nations,  which  are  now  mod  famed  for  po- 
litcnefs  and  humanity. 

5    3.     Treatmcyit  of  befie^ed  cities. 

The  Jewifli  legiflature  went  flill  a  ftcp  farther  than 
this  firft  inftance  of  humanity.  Even  when  after  a 
victory  an  enemy's  city  was  beheged,  the  law  oblig- 
ed us  to  (i)  -proclaim  peace  unto  it.  If  they  accepted 
it  before  the  alTault  and  opened  their  gates,  the  only 
punifhment  to  be.  inflicted  on  them  was,  that 
they  fliould  become  tributaries  unto  us  and  (2) 
fer'vc  us. 

But  if  they  rcfufed  an  accommodation,  and  per- 
fifted  in  a  defence,  then  the  law  permitted  us  to  take 
the  place  by  aifault.  And  in  order  to  punilh  them 
for  their  obfcinate  refinance  in  rifquing  to  bring  upon 
themfelves  all  the  horrors  of  war,  and  to  fliew  an 
example  to  intimidate  others,  the  law  gave  them  up 
to  our  difcretion.  Thou  jhalt  fmitc  every  male  there- 
of with  the  edge  of  the  fword  ;  obferve  this  expreflinii 
(3)  every  ?nale  thereof  that  is  all  thofe  who  bear  arms, 
for  then  every  man  was  a  foldier.  This  is  the  fenfe 
of  (4)  the  original.  And  take  notice  too,  that  this 
.is  a  permiffion  granted  and  not  an  order  given,  for 
v/e  were  allov/ed  to  make  prifoners. 

The  objed  therefore  of  this  flatute,  was  not   to 
oblige  us  to  kill  all  thofe  who  bore   arms,  but   to 

O  o 

(1)  Proclaim  peace  utile  it.     Deuteronomy,  ch.   20.      Aut. 

(2)  Sifue  ut-     Ibidem.     Aut. 

(3)  JF'verymiile  thereof.      See  ibidem.      Aut. 

(4)  Thtoii^inal.  Jf>fephu>  undcrtlands  it  In  tlie  fame  fcnfe:  of  rholc  who 
bore  arms  and  made  refiftance. 

Ancient  nations  generally  killed  on  thofe  occafions  all  the  males  of  the  age 
of  fourteen,  and  the  Romans  particu'arly  gave  inftanci  5  of  this  fc-verity 
ajra  nft  fucii  cities  as  made  an  ohftinate  defiance.  Ca-lei,  fays  l-evy,  (pti-kirj^ 
of  'I'aretum,  tota  vrb:  po£lm  faBx  :  nee  iiili  fiiiberiim  <jut  uli-vius  fuit  p^r.',h,it„f. 
But  they  pudicd  this  cruelty  fomctimcs  farther.     W'c  ihal!  j;ruiu;c  Iohk;  m- 


2S6  Letters     of 

prevent  us  from  killing  any  others.  In  thofe  times, 
mod  nations,  in  the  heat  of  the  alTault,  and  even 
after  it,  maffacred  every  one  they  met  with,  with- 
out difiintliion  of  age  or  fex.  But  our  law  forbad 
us  to  kill  any  excepr  thofe  who  bore  arms.  It  or- 
dered us,  even  in  thefe  moments  of  tumult  and  car- 
nage, to  fpare  women  and  children,  becaufe  as  they 
could  neiiher  make  nor  advife  war,  it  deemed  them 
worthy  of  being  treated  with  lefs  rigour. 

Thii::,  this  ilatute',  which  you  thinkyo  barbarous, 
had  no  other  view  than  to  reprefs  thofe  cruelties 
which  were  then  practifed,  and  to  confine  us  within. 
tiie  boiMids  of  that  feverity  which  is  unfortunately 
necefl'ary  on  thofe  occafions,  a  feverity  which  is  prac- 
tifed among  the  mod  polite  nations. 

§   4.   1  reatment  of  prifoners  of  ivar. 
This  is  not  all,   fir;   obferve  with  what   caution 
the  Iciw  orders  the  Hebrew  foldier  to   treat  his  pri- 
foners of  war  ;  it  does  not  abandon  them  to  the  in- 
folence  and  brutality  of  the  conqueror.     If  thou  feejl 
among  the  captives  a  beautiful  womati,  and  haft  a  de- 
J'lre  unto  her^  that  thou   wouldfl  have  her  to  thy  wjfe, 
then  thou  fn alt  bring  her  home  to  thine  hoifc,    andfbe 
f]:>all  foave  her  head^  and  pare  her  nails.     And  fhe 
f:) all  put  the  raiment  of  her  captivity  from  off  her,  and 
jhall  remain  in  thine  houfe^   and  bewail  her  father  and 
her  mother  a  full  7nonth^  and  after  that  thou  fhalt  go 
in  unto  her  and  be  her  hufoand,   and  fje  f  jail  be  thy 
life.     "  This  is  an  admirable  ilatute,  fays,  Philo. 
On  one  hand,  inltead  of  tolerating  that  licentiouf- 
nefs  which  cuilom,   and  the  laws  of  other  nations 
a!.:Hhorized,    it    kept    the    foldier,    during   thirty 
davs,  in  conRraint,  and  as  it  diewed  him  his  can- 
"  tivc,    during   this    interval,  in    an   undrefs,  and 
''  dripped  of  all  thofe   ornaments  which  might  add 
^'  to  her  charms,  it  gave  him  time  and  apportunity 
"  to  moderate  the  violence  of  his  padion.     On  the 
*'  orheT   hand,  this  law  was  a  balm  to  the  forrows 
"   of  the  captive.     If  fhe  was  a  maiucu  die  mud  have 
*'  been  didrefied  that   flie  could  not  be  marritd  ac- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  287 

*'  cording  to  her  heart's  defire,  and  with  the  con- 
*'  fent  of  her  parents.  If  fhe  was  a  widow,  (lie  muft 
*'  have  been  afflicted  too  for  the  lofs  of  her  firft  huf- 
*'  band,  and  for  being  obliged  to  take  up  with  an. 
"  imperious  mafler  in  the  perfon  of  her  (1)  fe- 
"  cond." 

Biit^  the  law  goes  on,  ;/  it  Jkall  be  that  thou  havs 
no  delight  in  her,  then  thou  Jl) alt  let  her  go  whither 
Jhe  Will,  but  thou  (halt  not  fell  her  at  all  fo^  money, 
thou  jhalt  not  make  merchandize  of  her,  becaufe  thou. 
hafi  (2)  humbled  her.  This  was  a  jufi;  penaky  for 
the  inconftancy  of  the  victorious  foldier,  and  a  kind 
reparation  to  the  unfortunate  woman,  for  the  abafe- 
ment  which  flie  had  endured  in  the  houfe  of  a  ftran- 
ger,  and  alfo  for  the  affront  of  feeing  herfelf  cafl  off 
by  him,  at  the  very  time  flie  might  have  expefted 
to  become  his  wife.  We  know,  fir,  that  fome  hea- 
then commanders  have  been  immortalized  for  their 
continence  on  fuch  occafions,  but  produce  any  an- 
cient nation,  whofe  government  treated  prifoners 
of  war  with  fo  much  tendernefs  and  refped  as 
ours. 

§  5.  Laws  of  war  more  gentle  among  the  Hebrews, 
than  a?nong  other  ancient  nations. 

Such  are  thofe  mihtary  laws,  fir,  which  ycu  de- 
clare to  be  detejlably  cruel.  They  are  in  truth  {o  ma- 
ny leffons  of  humanity  fitted  to  thefe  barbarous  times, 
fo  many  commands  given  to  our  fathers  to  abllain 
from  thofe  fhocking  practices,  which  all  nations  then 

(l)  Second.  Therefore,  according  to  the  learned  Jew  of  Alexandria,  the 
law  did  not  a  low  the  firft  familiarities  of  the  foldier  witli  his  captive.  Hs 
wz%  obliged  to  marry  her.  This  is  alfo  the  opinion  of  the  Talmu  lifts  of  Je- 
rufaleni,   of  Jofephus,  AbravantI,  &c.     Au:. 

(i)  liuinhUdher.  See  Deuterjn.  ch  ir,  v  lo-  Tliat  is,  acrordin<j  to 
Ahravanel,  becaufe  you  have  caftheroff,  after  having  confined  htr  to  fevere 
t;rtals,  during  a  month.  But  even  if  \vc  were  to  undt-rflantJ  by  this  word 
the  vigor's  enjoynient  of  his  captive,  yet  this  law  would  Itill  be  more  fa- 
vour.ihle  to  hfr  then  tii.'fc  of  moih'other  nations,  who  were  allowed  every 
familiarity  with  their  captives,  and  afierwr.rds  fold  them,  or  married  theni 
to  tlifir  flavcs.  See  the  complaint?  of  Polixsna  in  Euripides,  and  tbofj  of 
Andromache  in  Virgil. 

Stirpls  AchilLtjr  fupnts  juvenemijuf  fuberlum 

Scrvit:o  enixs  iulir/tiis,   qui  uetiiJs 

'       •      m: fumuluin famuloq^ue  Ilelcno  tranfntijit  hjhtndctm ,     £J'.i, 


>jS8  Letters     or 

indulged  themfelves  In,  and  which  in  later  times, 
the  moft  poliflied  people,  Perfians,  Greeks,  Re- 
mans, &c.  under  kings,  and  commanders  the  mofl 
famed  for  gentlenefs  and  benevolence,  pradtifed. 
Yes,  fir,  even  Vvhen  nations  became  more  civilized, 
and  manners  more  gentle,  the  vanquifhed  had  (i)  no 
law  to  mitigate  the  Severities  of  war.  According  to 
the  general  opinion,  their  property,  their  liberty, 
their  lives,  every  thing  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  vic- 
tor. This  was  the  right  of  war  acknowledged  by  all 
naticnvS  ;  and  often  the  incenfed  conqueror  executed 
this  barbarous  law  to  the  utmoft  rigour.  He  plun- 
dered and  fiavightered  every  thing  without  regard  of 
age  or  fex  ;  flavery  was  the  happieH:  lot  which  thofe 
unfortunate  perfons  could  hope  for,  who  efcapcd 
from  the  foldier  weary  of  carnage.  Thus  Sidon  was 
treated  by  Ochus,  Tyre  by  Alexander,  the  towns 
(2)  cf  the  Marfi  by  Germanicus,  Jerufalem  by  Ti- 
tus, Majozamalcha  and  Dacires  by  an  emperor  who 
was  (3)  aphilofopher  too.  Now,  fir,  exalt  the  apof- 
tate  Chriitian,  and  cenfure  the  Jewifh  legillator, 
Accufe  his  military  laws  of  cruelty  and  barbarity, 
whilil  they  are  indiiputably  more  gentle,  than  thofe 
of  any  ancient  or  modern  nation  that  has  not  yet  been 
enlightened  by  revelation. 

( I )  Xo  lav  U  mittgate.  It  Was  the  general  maxim,  Lex  nulla  vliJo p*ri'it  Sf 
Dec.    Trng.     Aut, 

(,2)  BftheMarft.  Tacitus  informs  US  of  this.  i\'<)»y^xv^,  he  fays,  »c«  <f. 
t,is  mifnaikncm  altuVit.  Sec  Annals,  lib.  r.  ch.  51.  Jofephus  ufes  almoil 
the  fama  words,  fpcakingof  the  taking  of  Jerufalem  by  Titus.  This  gene- 
ra!, of  fo  gentle  a  charailer,  caufed  a  great  number  of  Jews  to  be  flaughtered 
there  who  furrendcred  at  dif^retion.  Two  thoufand  prifoners  of  war  were 
hanged  by  his  orders,  and  two  thoufand  more  expofed  to  wild  beaAs,  or  for- 
ced to  kill  one  another  in  the  fhcws  which  he  gave  at  Cefarca  and  Beri- 
tus.      Ai:t 

(3)  A  philofupher  too.  When  Majozamalcha  was  taken  by  Julian,  every 
thing  in  it  was  I'laughtered  without  diftintlion  of  age  or  fex.  Sine  Sexutdifcri- 
m'tne  vel  afatis  quidquid  impetus  refer  it,  potejtat  iratorum  abfumpfit-  This  great  and 
popu'"U8  city  was  utterly  dcllri>yed.  Ampla  \Si  fopulofa  civitas  in  fuherem  ctn- 
tidit  ilf  ruinai. 

Dacires  was  treated  in  the  fa  me  manner.  When  Julian's  army  found  it  a- 
bandoned  by  the  inhabitants,  it  was  plundered.  Tie  tcomen  that  -were  Itjt 
tvercjlaujhteted,  and  the  cit'^  ivas  di\troyed  in  fuch  a  decree,  that  thofe  tvL*  ivouU 
have  Teen  the  place  en  ivbich  it  flood,  tvoulti  never  have  thought  tluit  thtr»  had  been 
a  (ity  tlere.     See  Ammiaiius  Marcelliuus  &  Zollmus.     Aut. 

Thus  truly  the  military  laws  nf  the-  Perfians,  Greeks,  and  Romans,  &C. 
wcregcntle,    auJ  thole  cf  the  Jtv.s  barbarous.     £dit. 


e  E  R  T  A  I  N     Jews.  289 

You  will  perhaps  fay,  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  al- 
ways obferve  that  moderation  which  was  enjoined 
them.  If  fome  of  them  deviated  from  it  without  law- 
ful reafons,  and  fuperior  orders,  we  give  them  up  to 
you.  But  be  candid,  fir,  cenfure  the  tranfgreflion, 
and  accufe  not  thofe  laws  which  condemn  it. 

§    6.  A  falfe  charge  of  the  celebrated  writer  con- 
futed. 

Judge  now,  fir,  with  what  equity  you  have  faid, 
that  /'/  was  our  cujiom  to  kill  all  males  in  cities  taken  by 
ajfatdt  ;  and.  again,  that  we  were  ahvays  commanded 
to  kill  all,  except  marriageable  women.  Is  it  not  clear 
that  this  is  a  grofs  calumny  againfl  our  laws,  or  an 
evident  proof,  before  all  the  earth,  that  you  never 
read  them. 

A  charge  fo  falfe,  fo  clearly  confuted  by  the  very 
text  of  thefe  laws,  whether  it  be  voluntary  and  inten- 
ded, or  only  the  effeft  of  hade  and  prejudice,  muft 
hurt  your  works.  It  is  proper  to  expunge  it  out  of 
your  new  edition.  We  requefl:  it  of  you,  lefs  on  our 
own  account  than  on  yours.  If,  after  having  (hewn, 
you  fo  evidently  the  falfity  of  it,  it  be  found  again  in 
your  works,  what  opinion  will  the  world  entertain  of 
your  juftlce  and  impartiality  ? 

We  are  moO:  refpeclfully,  o:c. 


'.go  Lettersof 

LETTER     IV. 

Of  the  civil  lazus  of  the  Hebrews. 


N  D  E  R  the  name  of  civil  laws  we  compre- 
hend all  thoie,  whofe  objeft  it  is  to  maintain  among 
the  individuals  of  the  ftate,  fccurity,  plenty,  honefty, 
jnftice  and  peace. 

We  think  we  do  not  fay  too  much  when  we  affirm, 
that  the  Mofaick  legiilature  is  inferior  in  this  refpedt 
to  none  other,  ancient  or  modern  ;  and  that  if  it  is 
compared  with  the  mod  famous:  legiflatures,  it  will 
not  lofe  by  the  parallel.  A  full  detail  of  this  would 
lead  us  too  far,  we  fliall  confine  ourfelves  to  Ibme  ca- 
pital points. 

§  ,  I .  Comparijon  offome  of  the  civil  lazes  of  the 
Hebrezvs,  zvith  fame  -parallel  laws  of  ancient  nations. 

Agriculture  is  the  parent  of  plenty,  the  bafis  and 
fuppcrt  of  dates.  No  laws  ever  tied  down  the  citi- 
zen to  his  ground,  by  more  powerful  bonds  than  ours. 
With  v;hat  pleafure  and  fatisfacVion  mull:  the  Hebrew 
have  cultivated  thcfe  lands,  which  were  originally 
given  by  God  to  his  anceitors,  then  were  handed 
down  from  father  to  fon,  ever  fuice  the  origin  of  this 
government,  and  were  to  pafs  to  his  mod  didant 
poderity. 

For  this  reafon,  the  cultivation  of  land,  which  wa3 
iiefpiled,  being  looked  on  as  a  fervile  occupation,  and 
given  up  to  fiaves  by  fo  (i)  many  nations,  was  al- 
ways accounted  an  honourable  profefiion  among  our 
fathers.  This  is  one  of  the  objects  on  which  the  legif- 
htorhas  entered' into  the  greated  (2)  detail. 

(i')  So  m.my  nat'c-is>  The  Spartans  for  innmce,  did  not  cultivate  their 
l.-i.;  Js,  thia  was  t!ic  bul:nefs  of  the  Helotci.      Eillt. 

(a)  Into  ihegmaltjt  dfl.iH.  Hence  fo  many  laws  to  prevent  waQc  in  the 
rinintry,  to  pirefcrve  and  incrtafe  fuch  aniniaU  as  were  ufeful  for  cultivating 
land,  hut  cfi>ecially  the  ftrorg  iir(.fcrcnci  jjivcn  to  property  i:i  the  cour.try,  te 
tiidt  in  ci'.icj.     y.tu- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  291 

What  great  uprlghtnefs  our  leglflatiire  required 
in  our  judges  !  Rome  permitted  hers  to  receive  Imall 
prefents,  Mumifcula.  "  Our  law,  '*  fays  Jofephus, 
"  forbids  them  under  pain  of  death,  to  receive  (i) 
any." 

Mod  ancient  nations  had  religious  afylums, 
from  whence  the  greateft  criminals  could  not  be 
dragged  ;  ''  and  thefe  afylums,"  fays  the  cele- 
brated writer  of  the  fpirit  of  laws,  "  increafed  fo 
"  much,  cfpecially  in  Greece,  that  magiftrates  found 
"  it  difficult  to  execute  juftice."  Mofes  appointed 
but  one  of  thcfc,  and  it  was  for  man-Uaughter. 
He  that  f mite th  a  manfo  that  be  die,  pall  be  fiircly 
put  to  death.  And  if  a  man  lie  not  in  waiti,  hut  God 
deliver  him  into  his  hand^  then  I  luill  appoint  ihee  a 
place  whether  he  fl^all  flee.  But  if  a  man  come  pre- 
fumptUQuJh  upon  his  neighbour,  to  flay  him  ivith  guile, 
(2)  thou  Ooalt  take  him  from  mine  altar  that  he  may 
die.  And  none  of  the  ranfoms  authorifed  by  other 
legiflators  for  this  crime,  could  be  taken  (3)  in 
ours. 

Wife  inltruQions  fecured  the  honour  of  our  wives, 
and  the  modelfy  of  our  daughters.     Compare  thcfe 


(l)   To  rect't-ae any .  Sec  Jofsplius  apainft  Appion.     Edit. 

(a)  Thou  pah  tall  bun  from  mine  altar.  See  Exodu5,  ch.  %\.  V.  12.  "  The 
"  laws  of  Moles,  with  regjrU  to  afylunis,  were  very  wife.  Thofe  wh->  had 
"  committed  uiaii-flau^liter  were  innocent,  but  it  was  proper  to  take  them 
"  from  before  the  relations  of  the  deceafeiJ.  He  therefore  appointed  an  afy- 
"  lum  for  them  .  Thofe  who  had  committed  great  crimes  deferved  jio  afyluin 
*'  and  they  got  none.  4'hc  Jews  had  but  cnc  talicrnade,  and  one  temple, 
"  the  vafl  conrourfe  of  men-killers,  coming  from  every  quarter,  might  have 
*'  diiturbed  divine  fervice.  If  they  had  been  driven  oac  of  the  country,  it  was 
"  to  be  feared  that  they  woald  worlhip  ilrange  gods  For  ihele  rcaions,  ci- 
«'  ties   of  afylums  were   eflablifhcd.^'     See   ipirit  of  laws.  Vol.  1!.  Ant. 

(3)  /■;  ours.  Thefc  kinds  of  ranfoms  were  ufed  amongft  all  ancimt  nati- 
ons. J'hey  were  authorifed  by  the  laws  of  ail  tlie  northern  nations,  Germans, 
Franks,  l-ombards,  &c.  The  murder  of  a  man  was  bought  oil" for  a  f^w 
crowns-  This  .baibarous  cuftom  is  not  yet  abolifhed  among  certain  Chriftian 
nations  ;  there  arc  yet,  that  fome,  where  a  rich  man,  for  a  fmall  fum,  may 
kill  a  poor  man  with  impunity.  Mr.  Voltaire  has  very  jufily  exclaimed 
againfl  this  fliocking  remainder  of'barbarifm.  We  delight  1:;  doing  him  ti.i.'j 
piece  of  juitice  It  mu!l  be  a!  owed  that  this  great  vvr;ter  \cx9.  of:tr.  pafl  juft 
tenfurcs,  and  given  urtfiil  advice  to  tlic  a^<:   lie  lives  in.     Ldt. 


292  Letters     of 

inftitutions  with  the  (i)  nakednefs,  the  lending,  (a) 
the  promifcuous  ufe  of  women  eflabiflied  by  certain 
leQifiators. 

Compare  our  marriage  laws  with  thofe  of  the 
Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Perfians,  &c.  which  permit- 
ted not  only  coufm-germans  to  marry,  (3)  but 
the  uncle  the  niece,  the  brother  the  fifter,  the 
father  and  daughter,  and  even  (4)  the  mother  and 
the  fon,  and  tell  us  on  which  fide  flood  decency 
and  wife  policy. 

'  You  accufe  our  government  of  barbarity.  But  if 
the  time  and  fpace  allotted  to  a  letter  would  admit 
it,  wc  could  readily  fet  the  gentlenefs  and  equity  of 
our  laws  in  oppofition  to  the  juftice  and^crueky  of 
parallel  laws  of  ancient  nations.  ^' 

In  this  legiilature,  there  were  none  of  thofe  (5) 
hereditary  profefTions,  none  of  thofe  blemifhing  dif- 

(i)  The  nalidiiifi  of  nvomen,  Izfc  At  Lacedcmon,  on  certain  days  of  the 
year,  it  was  ufual  for  young  pcrfotis  of  both  fexcs,  to  exercife  and  dance  to- 
j^Cthcr  naked.  TLe  Iwzvs  cffiparta,  fays  Montefquieu,  not  only  deprived  pa- 
rents cfatl  natural  feelings,  hut  aljo f  ripped  chaHiiy  rfmode/ly.      Aiit. 

(a)  Tie  Icndirg,  Ikc.  The  laws  oi  Sparta  allowed  it.  It  was  alfo  pradlif- 
ed  in  the  othe/  Grecian  comnjonwcalths.  I'liere  were  examples  of  it  cveii  in 
Rome.     £u'il. 

(3)  Tljc  uncle  ivilh  the  niece,  &c.  The  emperor  Claudius  was  the  firft  Ro- 
jnan  who  married  his  niece.  Marriages  between  brothers  and  fifters  were 
common  in  £gypt  a'ld  Pcrfia,  they  were  fo  even  among  the  Greeks ;  the 
Kcm;  ns,  and  aimoft  all  the  wettern  nations,  abhorred  them  with  good  rea- 
fon.  Thefe  marriages  could  not  fail  to  introduce  many  irregularities  in  fa- 
milies. See  what  hifliop  Taylor  fays  on  this  It  belongs  to  found  policy  to 
prevent  thefe  irrcrularitics,  and  to  extend  as  far  as  the  frame  of  govern- 
ment will  permit,  the  connexions  and  motives  of  attalhmcnt  between' fel- 
low-,citizens. 

For  th.efc  reufcns  the  Jcwifh  lawgiver  prohibited  furh  marriages.  His 
laws  with  regard  to  this  are  clear.  Sec  Leviticus,  ch.  i8.  Mofes  there  cx- 
prcfsly  forbids  father  and  daughter  to  marry,  fon  and  moth-r,  father  in  law 
and  daughter  i"i  law,  fon  in  law  and  mother  in  law,  brother  and  fifler  of  fame 
father  and  mother,  or  of  fame  father  only,  or  of  fame  mother  only,  and  whe- 
ther they  were  legitimate  or  illegitimate  ;  the  marriages  alfo  between  grand- 
lather  and  grand-dauj;htcr,  nephew  and  aunt,  brother  in  law  and  filler  in 
Jaw  are  forhiitden.  Thefe  laws  flowed  from  wifdom  and  decency,  and  be- 
fides  it  is  phyfically  uftful,  and  of  great  advantage  to  population,  to  traverfc 
lineage  and  mix  blood .     Edit. 

(4)  Hie  tmther  ivitb  the  fon .  The  ancient  Perfians,  Arabians,  Cananeanp, 
Egyptians,  &e.  have  been  cenfured  for  fuch  mceftuous  marriages.  But  the 
wiioiewiUern  worhl  always  abhorred  them.     EJii. 

(5)  Hereditary  prof  Jjiciu.  No  one  can  difpute  that  tbefc  hereditary  pro- 
fcllloiis,  tl'.Vfe  ciiflindlious  ef  Cafes,  Si.c.  flowed  from  bad  policy.  1  hey 
coulrf  only  fcrvc  to  dam})  emulation  and  gcD>'is,  and  to  propagate  among 

fu'liow-citiztna  hatred  and-balefu!  jeakufies.    £dit. 


Jew  s." 


•9,-5 


ihiSions  of  Caftcs^  eflabliflied  among-  the  Egyptians 
and  Brachmans  none  of  thofe  outrageous  contempts 
of  one  order  for  the  other,  which  caufed  feditions  for 
a  long  time  in  the  Roman  commonwealtii.  Every 
thing  here  recalled  to  the  minds  of  the  Kcbrcwi 
that  original  equality,  and  thofe  fraternal  feelings, 
which  their  common  defcent  from  one  flock  oun;ht  to 
infpire  them  with. 

Thefe  fentimcnts  were  not  confined  to  the  Jews  by 
birth  ;  every  other  perfon  might  iliare  in  them.  It 
was  a  fixed  law  amongft  us,  to  admit  into  our  reli- 
gion and  our  commonwealth  all  thofe  who,  by  fub- 
mitting  to  the  rite  of  circumcifion,  would  admit 
(i)  our  laws  and  cufhoms.  This  was  a  more  hu- 
mane law  certainly,  and  favoured  more  of  true  po- 
licy, than  that  odious  exclufion  of  ftrangers,  ordain- 
ed by  {o  (2)  many  other  legiflators. 

Review  all  the  laws  of  ancient  nations,  what  can. 
you  find  in  them,  that  equals  the  tender  care  of  the 
Jcwifli  law-giver,  for  the  orphan,  the  widow,  the 
poor,  and  (3)  all  the  diftrefled  ?  Or  that  equals  the 
humanity  of  thefe  two  inltitutions  of  the  feventh 
year,  which  fet  the  citizens  at  liberty  who  had  be- 
come flaves,  and  of  the  Jubilee  year,  which  reftorcd 
every  fiftieth  year  to  the  proprietors,  their  lands  and 
houfes  that  had  been  (4)  alienated  ? 

(l)   Our  laivs  and cullomt .     1  he  law  is  clear.      The /tranter  TvLoJholl c'trcum' 

e'ife  the  Jlfjh   of  his  fstejkin,  ivlth  all  the  males  of  his  family,  fball  eat  the  fajpii.'er 

■  tvilb  you,  and  Jbalt  bj  as  one  horn  amo>rrR  foii.      Thus  Achifjr,   bccaufe   he   lelie'veJ 

erreatly  in  Co,/,  and  circumcifeJ  the  Jl,.Jh  of  hii  forepiin,  luas  juincd  unto   the   honfe  if 

Jfrael  unto  this  d.iy,      Judith,  ch.   \i^.   v.   6.      Aiit. 

^2)  Other  legijljtors.  Lycurgus  amon^  Others,  excliuled  all  ftrangerp  frorn 
his  commonwealth.  They  were  not  even  permitted  to  tarry  long  at  Lace- 
dcBion,  and  the  l..acedcmonians  were  not  allowed  to  travel  abroad.  This 
js  the  obfervation  of  Jofephus  againfl  Appiofi,  l.,ib.  a  No-  38.  '  Piatb  pro- 
duces the  fame  charjj*  a^ainfl  the  Spartan  law-givers.     Aut. 

(3)  All  the  dijlrejfid.  Ib  the  Mofaick  legiflaturc  there  are  found  many 
laws  is  favour  of  the  poor,  and  prcfTing  exhortations  t»  relieve  ail  thofe 
who  are  in  want.  Other  law-givers  produce  nothinjj  comparable  to  this. 
Whtn  we  refic(5l  on  all  thefe  laws  and -exhortations,  in  which  the  law-givcr'.i 
humanity  is  fo  (Irong'y  marked,  can  one  bear  patiently  to  liear  tl/is  great 
man  and  his  whole  i>iari  of  government,  braniied  witli  the  nL>mts  c^ f.raiiy 
tml i-.irinrity,  by  a  celebrated  writer  whaca  Is  liimfclf  impartial  .'     jEj/V. 

(n)  Allea;i!'d-  Bifides  the  tendency  to  humanity,  tliefe  two  inftitu'ions 
tad  a  very  w..''l*  jioIi;i;-l  o^ijeit ;  the  or.s  prevxnttJ  tlic  iiumljcr  wf  ciii^in* 


394  Letters     ok 

Alnioft  all  ancient  governments  abandoned,  ■with- 
out referve,  the  Haves  of  both  fexes  to  the  lufl  and 
brutality  (1)  of  their  marters.  You  cannot  be  igno- 
rant (2)  to  what  excedes  this  permiffion  gave  birth, 
even  amongft,  nations  that  are  often  propofed  to  us 
as  models  of  wife  government.  It  was  reckoned 
moderation  to  give  up  guilty  fiaves  only  to  cruel 
puniflnnents,  even  the  innocent  were  not  always 
fpared. 

(3)  At   LaCwdemon,  let  Haves  be   treated    in 

whatfoever  manner,  they  could  not  claim  thepro- 
*'  teclion  of  the  laws.  They  were  obliged  every  year 
*'  to  receive  a  certain  number  of  ilripes,  altho'  they 
*'  had  not  deferved  them,  merely  left  they  fl:oiild  for- 
*'  get  the  duty  of  obedience.  If  any  one.  of.  them 
*'  looked  above  his  condition,  by  an  elegant  figure, 
"  he  was  candemned  to  die,  and  his  mafter  was 
''  fined,  in  order  that  he  might  by  feverity  prevent 

from  decreafing  andperlfKing,  to  the  lofs  of  the  ptihlick,  in  the  (late  of  Ha- 
ver/ ;  the  other  rcftored  them  lo  the  privileges  and  cfiices  ef  a  citizen,  .iste 
X)cuteronomy,  chap.   l^.     Leviticus,  ch.   25.     £i/lt. 

(1)  Of  their  majiers,  "  I  do  think,"  fays  Montelquicu,  "  that  the- policy 
*'  of  the  Romans  was  good  in  this  refpe(5t.  They  gave  a  loofe  to  the  iiicon- 
*'  tinence  of  maRer«,  (the  fame  may  be  faid  of  aimofl  all  ancient  nations.) 
"  Slavery  has  for  its  objefTc,"  he  adds,  "  utility,  not  voluptuoufiiifs.  The 
*'  la\^s  cf  decency  are  founded  on  the  law  of  nature,,  and  n^uft  be  felt  by 
*•  all  nations.  And  if  the  law  which  prote*. s  the  n-.odelly  of  fiaves  is  valid 
•'  even  in  arbitrary  governraents,  where  abfolute  power  reigns,  how  much, 
*'  more  in  others  1"  This  liccntioufnefsi  was  the  banc  of  n-.orals  among  ancient 
nations.  What  could  unfortunate  flaves  do  againft  voluptuous  impeiious 
niaflers,  wha  were  reftrained  by  no  laws  .'     Edit. 

(2)  I'o  ivhaf  cxcrjfes.  Hjcctflcs  of  incontinence  which  are  attcP.ed  by  ail 
the  ancient  writers.  Read  only  Anacreon  and  Horace,  and  fee  to  what  ex- 
ccffcs  the  Geceks  and  Romans  went  in  this  refpe«.^.  Even  Cato,  the  wile 
Cato,  carried  on  a  fcandalous  trade  with  his  beautiful  flaves  whom  he  prof* 
tituted.  There  were  alfo  exccffes  of  cruelty  with.out  bounds.  It  makes 
one  tremble  to  read  over  the  Roman  laws  rcfpetfling  flavts.  They  compare 
them  to  beafts  of  burthen,  and  give  them  up  to  the  m^ft  cruel  tortures-  Did 
the  mailer  of  a  family  happen  to  be  afTallinated,  all  thofe  that  were  found 
under  the  fame  roof;  or  ever  within  the  found  cf  the  voice,  were  condemn- 
ed to  die  without  dillindion.  Thtfe  laws  are  the  work  of  ferocity,  and  the 
fcandal  of  reafua.  And  can  any  cue  prefer  fuch  £,overnmcnt  to  ours  ? 
4ut. 

(3)  At  Lacedemoti,     This  is  taken  out  of  the  jjd  Vol.  of  the  Memoirs  of 
the  Ac3dcn>j  of  Bcll-js  Lcttres,  and  is  written  by  Mr.  Cajiperonicr.     This  . 
learned  Academician  fcems  to  think  that  the  Cryftia  was  rot  authorized  by 
»hcir  laws.     But  altho'  it  may  n<ft  have  been  aathcrizcd,  yet  it  apptavsi.; 
Jciifl  Uiai;  U  was  rolertttd  by  thmi.      ^dit. 

r  ■ 


CERTAIN      J    E    W    §.  295 

"  his  Other  Haves  from  offending  hereafter  the  eyes 
*'  of  the  citizens  by  their  outward  accon:iph!h- 
*'  ment?.*' 

The  Spartans,  authorized  by  thefe  laws,  ufed  to 
fall  upon  the  Heloies,  whiUt  they  were  employed  in 
the  works  of  hufoandry,  and  without  mercy  would 
tleflroy  the  ablclt  men  aniongft  them,  for  no  other 
reafon  but  for  excrcife,  and  left  thefe  Haves  fliouid 
increafe  too  much. 

Rome,  more  barbarous  ftill,  faw  her  great  men 
flaughterinj;  their  Haves,  v/ithout  caufe  of  complaint, 
in  order  to  thrOw  their  bodies  into  their  fifn-ponds, 
to  make  their  lampreys,  by  fuch  nourifiiment,  more 
delicious.  Even  under  the  eyes  of  the  magiflrates, 
thoufands  of  .thei'e  unhappy  creatures  expired  in  the 
amphitheatre  j  for  the  amufement  of  a  cruel  people; 
and  fome  feflival-days  caufed  more  human  blood  to 
flow  in  the  empire  than  many  days  of  battle. 

Our  laws'  did  not  give  to  mailers  this  tyrannical 
power.  They  watched  over  the  lives  and  modelly 
offiaves.  They  ordained  that  if  the  mailer,  when 
he  Tcruck  the  flave,  put  out  his  eye  or  brokeu  his 
tooth,  he  fhould  (1)  fend  him  home  free.  When 
they  deferved  death,  the  judges  were  to  pronounce 
the  fentence,  and  if  any  man,  chaflized  by  his  maf- 
ter  with  a  (lick,  died  in  the  acl,  the  mafler  (2)  was 
condemned  to  die,  except  he  Ihewed  clearly  that  he 
had  no  defign  to  kill  him ;  and  he  was  not  fecura 
from  profecution,  except  the  flave  furvived  the  cor- 
•  region  (3)  for  fome  days.     For  this  reafon  our  fa- 

(t)    ^,nd  I'li^h'jBftfrce-     ExoOus,  cTi.   ir.    v.   2',   17. 

(ZJ  Vi'asc:>n.!emntd  ttdii.  SeeElodus,  ch.  21  V.  ai-  The  tex*  fays,  /* 
JbM  be lurc'y  puK'Jht.l,  By  ihli  llie  Jc: wifa  liuccors  uudcrfland  the  punilhmcr.t 
of  lieath.     Aai, 

(3)  For  fo-n'  dj^jt.  The  TegiiTatiir  jnflty  fimpofed  that  the  t'.oiil)!e  apprc- 
fcenlion,  fii(f,  (•? cTpo^ng  himfelf  to  a  profecutiiri,  and  then  of  lofinjr  his 
monry,  would  lie  fufficicnt  to.heep  tl>e  pallion  and  violence  ofm-ifLers  In  pro- 
per bounds.  Tiiercfurelht;  author  of  the  f^iirit  of  laws  V'rry  ur.jufliy  cries 
our,  with'  rfganl  tc)  this  Iaw,  IVbut  7  njtlcn  :.'::j,  in  ^nh'uh  tic  civil  iaxv  "wus 
nh/hf,>  ta  ahate  *fifje  Ij-Ui  af  nutate  Htf  fllould  rathi^r  have  faid,  what  nati<>i,» 
the  Spartans,  Romans,  Sicilians!  WTiat  natiors  all  the  ancient  nations  ^ 
What  hw»  in  conjpai  ifcn  <.f  thofo  «:f  th«  Hehrcvvs  !  Thtfe  l&ttcr  put  a  <l«a* 
fcl«;  rcfiraiBtoH  th«  roilkr^  tl<:  fwriicr  Eonc  at  all.     £««<•  * 


2^5 


Letters     of 


thers  were  almoft  (i)  the  only  ancient  people  amcn^ 
whom  there  never  were  any  of  thofe  rebellions  of 
ilaves,  which  brought  fo  many   ot  her  dates  to  the 

(2)  brink  of  ruin. 

We  might  fay  much  more  of  the  xfife  limitations 

(3)  of  paternal  authority  among  the  Hebrews,  and  of 
the  barbarous  liberty  which  the  laws  gave  to  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  to  bring  up  or  to  expofe  their 
new  born  infants,  and  even  to  kill  them  of  whatever 

^ge  J  of  the  cruelty  of  the  ancient  Roman  laws  (4)  to- 

(1)  The  only  ancient  peo}!c.  We  fiiare  this  glory  with  the  Athenians,  that 
J3,  with  that  ancient  people  who,  of  ail  others,  treated  thek-  Caves  with  the 

jreateR  eetit!ene(s.    Idit. 

(2)  Brink  cf  mm.  The  ihncfers  wliich  the  Spartans,  Sicilians  and  Roman* 
incurred  frcni  their  rebellious  fiaves  are  well  known.  J^Iodern  nations  h3\c 
been  frequently  expofcd  ta  the  fame  dangers.      Aut. 

(3)  Of  paternal  authority .  A  woman  with  child, .if  file  had  hilled  her  olT- 
fpring,  a  father  if  he  had  expofed  his  new-born  infant,  would  have  been  cor.- 
ciemned  as  murderers  and  enemies  to  that  (late  which  they  deprived  of  a  ci- 
tizen. Sec  Jofephus  and  Philo.  Even  Tacitus  has  obfervcd  that  it  was  deem- 
ed criminal  in  a  Jew  to  kill  any  cf  his  children,  Necare  quenquam  ex  gratis  ne- 
f'as.  When  parents  bad  a  wicked  incorriijible  child,  they  were  obliged  to 
i-(imp'ain  to  the  judges,  who  ordered  him  to  be  put  to  death.  Set  DLUtero- 
jioniy,  ch.  aj. 

Heathen  nations  held  other  maxims  :  The  cuftcm  of  expofihg  or  killir;j 
rew-b«rii  infants,  which  is- ftill  common  in  China  atid  Japan,  was  univerW 
among  the  moft  civilized  nations.  At  Sparta  they  never  brought  any  chil- 
<iren  up,  who  happened  to  be  mifhapcn,  or  of  a  delicate  conllitution.  The 
tribunal  appointed  for  this  enquiry  ordered  them  to  be  immediately  thrown 
into  T  pit.  T  he  ancient  Roman  laws  wert  flill  farther;  they  gave  father* 
the  abfolute  right  of  life  and  death  over  their  children-  F.ndo  I'.Lcris  juj'tis  j,:s 
'njila,  necis,'venemdar.di(ittt  pvtcflas  ei  (patti)efio.  They  might  even  fell  therti 
three  times-  'i'his  power  htled  durhig  their  whole  life,  and  ended  only  with 
the  third  fale-  Si  patex  Jdlum  lt.r  vcnum  Untfltus  a  patre  Her  ao.  Then  fura 
the  Roman  laws  gave  a  man  greater  power  over  his  fon  than  over  hi^  flavt  ; 
this  is  the  o'lfervation  of  an  ancient  writer  Datapatri,  mojort  potcftate  tnfili- 
imquom  domino  iiifciiuvi.  /nd  /kriflotlc  h.'s  maintained  that  the  power  of 
vt  father  of  a  hunily  over  his  fldves  and  his  children  was  fo  abfoiute,  that  1  e 
<  ould  not  pofi'ibly  do  them  any  injulliec.  This  is  noble  morality  fiom  the 
J  riKce  of  philofophers  I  See  Cirotius.     Edit. 

(4)  'Toivi:rds  iiouien.  Ey  theft  laws,  a  woman  convlfied  of  having  drank 
Tvliii.',  was  fentcnced  ti>  die.  A  hufband  who  wanted  to  put  his  w  ife  legally 
i.>  dcsth  in  this  tafi.  and  in  that  of  adultery,  needed  not  to  appeal  to  eourts  uf 
Viflice  ;  a  meeting  cf  fome  reliticns  wasa  fufiicitnt  authority-  If  (lie  w.-.e 
taken  in  adultery^  he  n!;;:ht  kill  her  without  any  form  of  law,  whilft  the  h\v 
j^HVc  the  woman  no  power  to  obtain  faiisraAion  for  her  hufu.ind's  irrcguiafi- 
t  'cs.  In  addtcrio  uxvttni  tuam  ft  d:prehtudi{j'ii  itiipun,-  necare  .,  Tiys  Cato,  //.'./  le, 
f  aJulierares,  digita  conihigci e  tivn  auderet  IMutarth  tl^fUght  thife  laws  crutij, 
hut  tliev  wire  iimiformaUlc  to  the  liiws  cilabliHied  by  Romulus,  who  made 
♦  he  condition  of  the  Roman  women*  kiiid  of  ilivcry-  Add  to  tliis  thai  tlit 
Jjufba;id  Uii^lii  pdi  a\v»y  his  wife  fur  having  taken  his  keys.    /-.'«»'. 


e  E    R    T    /\    1    N      }    £    W    S.  297 

wards  women,  and  of  the  equity  of  ours  In  this  re- 
jpe6l  ;  of  the  moderation  which  was  enjoined  us 
( I )  towards  our  debtors,  and  oi  the  horrid  hiw  of  the 
twelve  tables,  which  allowed  the  creditors  to  (2)  load 
the  debtors  with  chains,  and  after  fome  market-days, 
to  cut  them  in. pieces,  and  (3)  to  Tnare  iimon^ft  them 
their  bloody  limbs,  or  to  fell  them  to  ftrangj^s  ! 

So  far  was  our  legillature  from  commanding,  or 
permitting  us  to  be  cruel  towards  our  fellow- 
creatures,  that  it  orders  us  every  where  to  treat  even 
cattle  with  humanity.  Thou  fiyalt  net  nn^zzle  the  ex 
ivhen  he  ireadelh  cut  the  corn.  (4)  Thou  fijalt  not 
take   the  dam  ii-'iih  the  youn?.     Thoujhalt  not  kill  the 

(r)  Tu7ifartis  »ur  dcltars.-  The  fcjUowing  laws  mi! [I  he  added  to  that 
wliich  ordered  us  to  for^iive  the  debts  due  to  us  evtry  ftventh  year.  "  Thou 
flialt  open  tiiiiie  hand  wide  unto  tliy  poor  brother,  aud  (hull  furely  lend  liitn 
iiilEcicnt  for  his  need.  Biware  that  there  be  not  a  wicktd  thought  in  thine 
heart,  faying,  the  year  of  rcltal'e  is  at  hand.  When  tliou  deft  lend  thy  bro- 
ther any  thii\^,  thou  flialt  nut  go  into  his  houfe  to  fetch  his  pledge,  thou  fhait 
ilarid  aijroad  a;id  the  man  Hiall  bring  it.  No  man  flmll  tul:e  the  nether  or  the 
upper  niill-ftone  to  pledge,  for  he  takctli  a  nian'slife  to  pledge.  In  any  cafe 
th.u  fhdlt  deliver  him  tht  pledge  aj;aiii  when  the  fun  RO(ith  down,  that  he 
j\iay  Ikep  in  his  own  lainiBnt-and  biifs  tlue,  and  it  fliall  be  righteoufncfs  un- 
to t!ice  before  the  Lord  thy  God.  DiUiemna.iy,  ch.   15,  and  24.  &.C.  &c." 

(zj  Load  the  debtora  luith  cbahis.  1  he  law  permitted  the  ufe  of  chairs  of  fif- 
teen jujunds  weight  ;  it  prohibited  any  weight  above  this.  V.ncito  aut  neri>3 
nut  Cempdiiiis  quinUrcift'  fondo  mc  mujore.  iind  no  one  has  cried  out,  PVhat 
a  nation  theft  Romam,  who  were  forbidden  by  Lvv  to  crufli  their  debtors  under 
the  weight  of  chains  !      Aft- 

"Vv'e  niufl  oUferve  here  that  this  law  was  one  of  thofe  enacSled  by  the  De- 
cemvirs, partly  with  a  view  to  mitigate  the  ancient  laws  againfl:  debtors. 
We  may  judge  from  this  how  fevcrc  they  n»ull  liave  been.  Under  the  pro- 
te>ft;oii  of  thcfc  laws,  creditors  treated  their  debtors  with  fuch  barbarity,  that 
tlmfe  cruelties  at  iall  excited  a  general  rebellion  of  ail  the  Plebeians  againft 
the  great.  See  1-ivy,  Dccad  lit.  This  Hiftorian  relates  there  one  fadt  of 
tat  higheft  cruelty.  Let  JVir.  Voltaire  compare  thcfc  laws  with  ours,  and 
tccidc.      Edit. 

(3;  T  of-itrt  amongl  them  their  blot  Jy  limbs.  'l"hefe  are  the  wOrds  of  the 'aw, 
H' our  memory  does  not  lail  us.  "  All  fi  pUires  eiunt  rei,  tertiis  nundinis. 
ftaitiifccaiito.  bi  plus  minufve  f>:cuerunt,  fc  trade  efto  ;  fi  volcnt  uls  Tibc- 
1  im  percgre  v'enun\danto.     Aut." 

Our  authors  take  this  law  in  the  fame  f«nfe  that  Au'us  Cellius  and  Qulnti- 
);an  do.  I  crtullian  urulerilood  it  fo  too.  Two  modcPiu,  Mr.  Binkcrfhock, 
a  Dutchman,  and  Mr.  Taylor,  an  Fnclifliman,  have  maintained  that  thit 
1  iw  tinly  permitted  the  crciiitors  to  divide  aniongfl  them  the  property,  not 
the  limbs  of  tlic  debtor.  Wc  wilh  for  the  fonour  of  tiie  twelve  tables,  tliot 
tnefe  two  modern  and  liarncd  Urangers  may  have  better  uo'ierilood  the 
ricaninK  of  this  Roman  law,  than  twi>  Romans  \%ho  might  be  cxpeded  t« 
»iiderftanii  it  well.      Edit.  .*• 

(4;  "Thoit^jit Mi  t.sit tlic  ijinviiiA ths yiuiig,    5es  D.u::ron.  ch.  ag.  &c 


29^  Letters     or 

you7ig  one  under  the  eye  of  his  dam.  Thou  fbalt  7'iotkit! 
the  animal  that  is  purjued  ivhich  taketh  refuge,  like 
a  fuppUant,  in  thine  houfe^  ^c.  Yes,  fir,  the  more 
we  ftudy  our  laws,  the  more  inftances  we  find  in 
themof  gcntlcnefs  and  humanity,  and  the  more  they 
•are  compared  with  ancient  legiflatures,  the  more 
a  man  "vvill  be  convinced  of  their  excellence. 

§    2.      Ci^•il  laii-'s    of   the  fcius     compared  ivith 
thofe  of  fome  modern    nations. 

But  let  us  drop  antiquity.  Do  you  think  that 
your  modern  legiflatures  havewifer  infUtutions  than 
ours  ?  We  do  not  prefume  here  to  cenfurethe  laws  of 
thofe  nations  which  tolerate  us.  No,  fo  much  afTur- 
ftnce  would  ill  become  our  unhappy  fituation.  It  will 
be  fufticient  to  (liew  you,  en  paifant,  that  .the  Jewi/h  le- 
giflature  which  has  no  charms  for  you,  is  at  lead  free 
from  thofe  defects  which  you  have  fo  often  charged 
on  your  modern  legiflatures. 

In  the  firil  place  we  have  a  code ;  we  had  it 
above  three  thoufand  years  ago  ;  and  you  have 
often  faid,  that  your  polite  nations  have  none* 
-They^  have  this  favour  ftill  (i)  to  exped  from 
their   fovereigns. 

Our  code  is  fhort  and  clear  ;  kings  can  read 
it,  and  nations  underliand  it.  Your  code  of  lawsj 
we  fpeak  your  own  fentimcnts,  are  after  fo  many, 
years  labour,  nothing  more  than  undigefl:ed  com- 
pilations, confufcd  heaps  of  foreign  laws  and  bar- 
barous cuftoms  ;  they  are  dark  labyrinths,  in 
which  your  mod  learned  counfellors  lofe  their  way, 
and  thro*  which  your  greatefl  lav/ycrs  can  fcarcely 
fhew  a  path. 

The  fame  laws  and  flatutes  ruled  all  the  tribes ; 
Juda  had  none  others  than  thofe  of  Ephraim,  and 
the  tribe  of  ManalTes  the  fame  as  that    of  BeFija- 

(l)  "Tt  expf^  from  their f,ji>:Teigns.  Two  f;reat  kings  have  late'y  dtferved 
the  thanks  of  tht'ir  lu-hjuiTis  lor  having  given  tlicm  cotics.  But  France, 
•if  wc  are  to  hciicvc /c /'ii\79,'«Z';/5/;or</n<,  has  not  yet  gut  one.  We  have  no 
lavKs,  Jic  fays,  but  we  havr;  fix.  or  f?:'ven  thoufanJ  voluiiKS  on  the  la«?, 
Ste  the  fuppliuient     to  U  J^LUoffL:  -giiiiani. 


c  E,  R  T  A  I  N     Jews.  299 

xnin.  But  among  you,  "Every  town,  every  ham- 
«'  let  has  its  own  laws.  What  isjufl  in  one  village 
"  is  unjuft  two  miles  farther,  and  you  change 
**  laws  as  often  as  you  change  poft-horfes." 

Our  laws  were  uniform  and  invariable.  "  There 
*'  is  no  (lability  in  yours.  They  change  like 
"  the  drelTes  of  men  and  women.  You  have 
*'  not  any  fixed  Lavs  (1)  even  in  criminal  ca- 
«  fer,." 

You  cenfure  the  diverfity  of  weights  and  mea- 
fures  in  ufc  in  your  provinces.  In  ours,  the  fame 
■weights  and  meafures  were  every  where  in  ufc,  as 
well  as  the  fame  laws. 

Your  clergy,  an  order  however' ufeful  and  refpeft- 
able,  even  in  a  poli.tical  Hght,  is  often  the  fubjeft  of 
your  (2)  invedives.  You  upbraid  them  with  their 
Celibacy,  and  their  great  poffeffions.  Ours  had  no 
land,  and  befides  gave  children  to  the  ftate. 

Our  judges  were  the  elders  of  our  cities  ;  they 
performed  the  duties  of  their  offices  without  fee 
or  reward.  And  you  inform  us  that  your  judges, 
almofl  as  foon  as  they  leave  fchool,  fit  in  the  fanc- 
tuary  of  jufticc,  and  there  give  fentence  on  the 
life  and  honour  of  a  citizen  ;  that  their  decrees 
mufl  be  paid  for,  and  that  they  themfelves  give 
large  fums  for  (3)  the  right  of  pronouncing 
them. 


(l)    Even   in  criminal  caps .     See  the  fuppllmcnt   tO   le  Pbilofophe   ignorant 
&.C      Aut. 

{2)  Invedivts.  Mr.  Voltaire  after  other  writers,  and  other  writers 
after  Mr.  Voltair*,  have  often  raifed  their  voices  againll  the  great  pro- 
perty of  the  chriilian  clergy.  Eut  what  w<iulj  thcfe  gentlenicn  have  ? 
Would  they  have  the  clcr^'y  have  no  property,  not  even  any  thing  to 
live  on  ?  This  would  be  fomewhat  hard.  Do  they  think  them  too  rich  ? 
We  can  affirm  that  we  have  often  fcen,  and  not  without  pain,  very 
Mfeful  clergy,  in  poor  cir^umflances.  EJit . 
,  {D  7he  rioht  0/ pronouncing  tbtm.  Sec  cfpecially  the  Philof'^ph.  DiAioti. 
Article  Montefqieu.  Mr-'' Voltaire  there  calls  the  vcnaluy  of  judges'* 
offices,  that  nuhle  trajfuk  tf  li-.v,  luhub  thi  French  only,  of  all  n.itioni  en 
earth,  are  acquainted  ivith.  "  Thtfe  men,"  he  fays  fpcakirg  cf  his  coun- 
trymen, "  niuft  be  the  greatc  ft  traders  in  the  wurld,  fiuce  they  buy  an4 
"  fell  even  the  right  of  judjjing  mcu."  ^ut> 


300  LeTtsrs     of 


Yois  could  wifli  that  in  3'our  country  trials 
in  capital  cafes  were  (i)  public  ;  in  our  govern- 
ment, every  one  was  prefent  at  fuch  trials, 
and  fometimes  the  people  executed  the  feiitence. 

When  you  confider  that  your  laws  inflict  on  a 
citizen  not  yet  convicted,  a  punidiment  more  dread- 
ful than  that  death  which  he  fuffers  after  certainty 
of  his  guilt,  you  fnudder  at  the  thought,  and  your 
(2)  tender  heart  lecoiles.  Look  into  the  laws  of 
Mofes,  you  will  find  that  this  barbarous  cuflom 
of  the  rack,  which  you  abhor,  was  never  known  in 
them.  (3)  No  Jevvifii  woman,  curious  to  pry  into 
fuch  matters,  ever  afeed  her  hufband  at  his  return 
from  court,  My  dear.  Did  you  put  tbofe  men  to  the  rack. 

Your  legifiatures  feem  to  you  (4)  extremely  feverc 
in  the  punilhments  which  they  inflicl  on  criminals. 
You  think  that  thofe  lingering  deaths  in  cruel  tor- 
ments, favour  much  of  the  barbarous  manners  of 
your  anceftors.  In  our  legiflature  punifhments  were 
fometimes  fevere,  but  the  kind  of  death  was  never 
far-fetched. 

"■You  do  not  approve  that  death  fhould  be  inflided 
by  your  laws  for  felony,  the  punifhment  you  think 
(5)  too  great  for  the  crime  ;  our  laws  puniflied  it 
jonly  by  reftitution,  fine,  or  flavery, 

If  a  Jirangcr  fojourn  '■jjith  you,  fays  Mofes,  'in  your 
land,  ye  Jhall  not  'vex  him.  But  the  fir  anger  that  diveU 
leth  with  you,  fball  be  unto  you  as  one  born  among  you. 
And  thou  fo  alt  love  h'm  as  thy f elf ^  for  ye  ivere  fir  angers 
in  the  land  of  Egypt.     lam   the  Lord  your    God.     (6) 

(l)  Puhltch.  Sc;e  the  comment  on  the  Treatife  of  Crimes  and  punifli- 
mencs,    and  the  Fhilofophkal  Diiftionary  Article    cf  the  L-fi  Icgifiaiinn.  Ant. 

(1)  Tender  heart  reeolh.  Sec  ibidem,  and  tfce  fupplcment  to /e  Pbilojopbe 
ignorant,    &C.    &C. 

(^)  No  'Jcv'Jh  vnrnan.  We  requefl  our  readers  to  recolleift  that  all  thefe 
criticifms  on   modern  Itjjiflatures  are  not  ours,  but  belong  to  Mr  Voltaire. 

(4)  Extremely  fevere.  See   comment  on  the  treatife  of  crimes  and  punilii* 

pieits.  .  u    L- 

(0    Too^rtat  f',r  the  crime.     See  ibidem.     A  wifs  yoimg  prince,  the  kinj; 

p{  iSenmark,  has  lately  ordered  this  crime  no  longer  to  be  punifhed  by  dea»h 

throughout  his  dominions.     EJlt. 

(6)  The  IfOniUvithth.-Jltan^'r.  See  DjuteroD.  ch.   2:.  Levit.  42,  23,  &c. 


it 

(C 
(C 


CERTAIN     Jews.  301 

The  Lord  loveth  the  Jlranger.     Are   not  tLefe  laws 
kinder,  fir,  than  your  (i)  droit  d'Aubaine? 

Mofes  fays,  If  a  man  finite  the  eve  of  hh  fervan*  or 
the  eye  of  his  mcid^  and  if  he  f mite  out  his  mnnfer^v'.nf''  s 
tooth  or  his  m^iidfcrnj  ni s  toothy  be  fh all  let  them  (2) 
go  free  for  the  fake  of  the  eye  or  the  tooth.  You  gen- 
tle and  humane  nations,  fay  to  your  negroes,  "  that 
"  they  are  men  like  you,  redeemed  with  tke  blood 
*'  of  that  God,  who  died  for  them  as  well  as  for 
you.  And  after  this  you  make  them  work  like 
beads  of  burthen,  you  feed  them  ill,  and  if  they 
attempt  to  run  away,  you  cut  off  one  of  their  le^s, 
and  you  oblige  them  to  turn  a  fugar-miil,  after 
giving  them  a  wooden  one." 
Our  code  fays,  there  Jhall  be  (3)  no  whore  of  the 
daughters  of  Ifracl^  all  your  cities  are  full  of  them  ; 
and  if  we  are  to  believe  your  wife  men,  there  ou^ht 
to  be  publick  endowments  for  them,  and  their  call- 
ing ought  to  be  held  honourable. 

It  fays,  he  that  is  wounded  in  the  fiones,  or  hath 
bis  privy  ?7ie?nbers  cut  off,  fiall  not  enter  into  the  (4) 
congregation  of  the  Lord,  And  Philo  affirms  that 
death  was  the  punifhment  appointed  for  thus  muti- 
lating a  man.  But  you  mutilate  your  children  to 
make  (5)  inuftcians  of  them  for  the  pope's  chapel,  and 

(i)  Droit  (f  Aulalne.  This  is  a  kind  of  efcheatajje.  The  right  of  fuc- 
cefTion  in  the  cftate  of  an  alien,  dying  vvitiiouc  naturalization  and  Fnncb  I  orii 
iffuc.  Sovereigns  ar;  infenUbly  aboiifliinp:  it.  A  more  wife  pohcy  has 
opened  their  ey.es  to  their  true  intereds.     Edit. 

(2)  Go  free.  Exodus,  ch.  2i.  We  exhorr  our  readers  to  co:'.i'iire  our 
Iawsreff>c.:1ing  ilavery  with  the  black  code,  and  then  to  tell  us  in  whicli  of 
them  tl:ey  find  the  moll  humanity.     Aut. 

(3^  N^o  itbore  in  IJra:l.  Sec  Leviticu?,  ch.  K).  Deuteron.  ch.  23.  v.  17. 
Sec  alfo  Jofcpiuis  and  Pbilo.     Aut. 

The  words  of  this  law  fi;rnify  literally,  there  ihall  be  no  onf.crj'.cd m^n  or 
ivoman ;  whence  fonie  commentators  concluded,  that  it  alludes  to  th(;i'i  in- 
famous perfons  of  both  fexes,  who  attended  in  the  temples  oi  Baal-pcor, 
Moloch,  Priapus,  and  Venui,  and  there  publicly  devoted  themlclves  to 
proflitutjon.  This  was  an  abominable  cuftom  vvhich  ti^ie  laws  tolerated, 
the  Pagan  religion  confecrated.  and  which  the  holy  k\i:ihator  forbad  his 
people.  They  reckoned  two  thoufand  fuch  cnnfecrateJ  wonicn  in  the  fin- 
j;le  temple  of  Venus  at  Corinth,  ail  fupported  at  the  cxpence  of  the  temple. 
EJt. 

(4)   Congregation  ofihiLorf.      Sec  Leviticus,  ch.  2Z.      A'<t 

{•)   Miiff.ijn'Jor    the  Rape's  eha^el.      With   wh.it    visw  do:j    tie   learned 


302  Letters     of 

you  poft  up  In  your  towns  advertifements  informing 
the  pubiick,  where  the  (i)  beft  operators  in  this  way 
niny  be  found. 

You  laugh  at  the  particulars,  into  which  Mofes 
enters  for  keeping  wholefome  air  in  our  camps  and 
cities,  and  cleanlinefs  about  our  houfes  and  perfons  ; 
at  the  ablutions  he  prefcribes  after  having  touched 
dead  bodies ;  at  the  attention  he  recommends  to  us 
to  cover  the  blood  of  flaughtered  animals,  &c.  'Tis 
true  your  laws  lay  no  fuch  troublefome  obfervances 
on  you.  No,  but  the  moft  pubiick  places  in  your 
capitals  prefent  us  with  a  fliocking  fpcclacle  of  the 
carcafes  of  animals  cut  up  ;  (2)  the  blood  flows 
from  Itreet  to  ftreet,  and  the  dead  infeci:  the  living 
even  in  (3)  your  temples. 

A  contagious  diftemper  raged  In  Palefline  and  the 
neighbourhood  ;  the  v/ife  precautions  of  our  legifla- 
tor  prevented  its  communication  ;  and  your  fathers 
by  obferving  thefe,  at  laft  kept  off  (4)  this  fcourge. 
A  flill  more  deftrudive  contagion  mows  down  the 
flower  of  your  youth,  and  you  have  no  other  fecret 

chriflian  here  attack  the  head  of  the  chrifllan  reljgion  in  particular  ?  Is  it 
fcr  the  pope  only,  or  for  all  the  princes  and  operas  of  Europe,  that  they 
nvAe  tui!uchs  in  Italy  ?  We  niuft  be  more  equitable  than  him,  and  confels 
that  we  have  been  affured  at  Rome,  that  many  popes  have  prohibited  this 
barbarous  ctiftom,  by  their  bulls,  under  pain  of  excommunication.  The 
vrifc  pontiff  now  on  the  throne  has  renewed  the  fame  prohibitions.      Edit. 

(1)  B eft  operators  in  this  ivay,  be  Not  long  ago,  fays  Mr.  Voltaire, 
the  following  words  were  written  in  large  charaders  at  Naples,  over  the 
door  of  fonie  barbers,  ^i  fi  cajiraiw  maraviglioftmente  i puti.  See  the.  cuni- 
m«nt  on  crimes  and  punilhmcnts.     Ant. 

(a)  T^he  blhoi  jloivs  from  ftreet  tejircet.  This  fpedade  Cf)uld  not  fail  to 
ofTend  flrangers,  who  are  accuftomed  to  the  neatnefs  of  the  markets  in 
Holland.  It  is  hard  to  conceive,  that  in  fome  cities  it  never  came  into 
any  man's  mind,  if  not  to  give  the  blood  of  flaughter-houfes  a  free  paffagc 
by  fubtcrrancous  canals,  yet  at  leaft  to  bring  the  fcwers  near  the  flaughter- 
hcufcs,  or  the  flaughtcr-houfes  near  the  fcwers.     £J'it. 

(;^)  In  your  templis  We  are  affured  that  the  civil  power  has  often  en- 
deavoured to  correct  this  abufo,  againtl  which  Mr.  Voltaire  mor?  than 
once  cried  out-  A  corpfe  in  a  Jewifh  temple  would  have  been  a  profajia- 
ti'on.  There  were  but  two  ftpulchres  in  Jerufaleni,  that  of  David  and 
that  of  Oida.  In  ancient  Rome  there  was  hut  one,  which  is  ftill  feen 
there.  The  Roman  latvs  forbad  burying  or  burning  the  dead  in  the  city. 
Udminein  rnorluum  in  uriene  fcpdito,   neve  urito-      Aut. 

(4")  T^his  fcourge-  "Vrom  the  firft  rife  of  the  Hebrew  government,  their 
legiflaK  r  enafled  laws  againft  the  leprol'y.  For  more  than  two  centuriet 
the  grer.t  and  fmall  pojc  have  laid  Europe  wafle,  and  the  uatitjns  have  not 
yet  j;ot  any  laws  on  lui>jeds  fo  important.     £<dit. 


CERTAIN      Jews.  30 'i 

for  curing  it,  but  to  give  it  to  yourfelve?,  and  your 
only  method  of  preferving  yourfelves  from  it  is  ( 1 ) 
to  fpread  it. 

Your  politicians  begin  at  lafl  to  fee  that  the 
true  ftrength  of  the  ftate  confifts  in  the  multitude  of 
people.  Mofes  knew  this  thirty  centuries  before 
them.  No  legiflator  ever  knew  how  to  incite  his 
people  more  flrongly  to  population.  According  to 
the  fpirit  of  this  government,  celibacy  is  a  misfor- 
tune, barrennefs  a  fcandal,  and  a  multitude  of  chil- 
dren the  bleffinn;  of  the  Lord.  There,  every  thing 
favours  the  inftind  of  nature,  the  great  command  of 
the  creditor,  for  the  Meffiah  is  expected,  luxurv  is 
forbidden,  debauchery  and  all  enticements  to  it  (2) 
are  profcribed.  Dare  you  compare  thefe  powerful 
fprings,  the  efficacy  of  which  is  (till  (3)  felt  amonglt 
us,  to  the  vain  declamations  of  your  politicians, 
which  are  contradicted  by  their  examples  ?  And  in- 
deed thefe  declamations  produce  noble  etfccis  !  We 
will  refpecl  your  religious  celibacy,  and  will  not  con- 
demn the  decrees  of  your  church.  But  what  fwarms 
of  other  kinds  of  unmarried  people  fill  your  capitals 
and  provinces  !  (4)  Batchelors  in  war  and  in  fervi- 

(1)  To  fpread  It.  Mr.  Voltaire  claims  the  honour  of  ht'm^  the  firll  who 
fpoke  of  inoculation  in  France.  Other  perfons  of  fome  underftanrtiiif,  af- 
firm that  an  eminent  phyfician  brought  it  to  light  hcfore  his  time.  Let 
this  he  as  it  will,  it  is  not  by  any  means  our  intent  to  condemn  it.  We 
think  on  the  contrary,  that  as  the  prailice  is  tolerated,  it  is  too  litrje  ufei 
and  with  too  little  precaution.  We  would  however  give  the  preference  to 
Mr.  Paulet's  prefervative  method,  which  is  the  fame  as  that  of  Mofts 
againft   tiie  Icprofy.      We  are  informed  that   an   eminent  phyfician  is  pre- 

_  paring  to  ftrenijthen  it  by  new  proofs  and  experiments.     Jut. 

(2)  AreprvfcribcJ.  M.  de  Montefquieu  obferves,  that  fornication  con- 
tributes little  to  population,  and  that  incontinence  in  general  is  the  bane  of 
it.     Edit. 

(3)  Felt  amanaft  us.  Tacitus  makes  the  fame  obfervation  of  the  laws  in 
his  time  ;  au^end^  multitudini  cunfulitur,  fays  tl;is  hiflorian  Thefe,  according 
to  him,  were  two  features  in  their  charadcrs,  the  defire  of  having  chil- 
dren, and  the  contempt  of  death.  /h'lmas  ttemas  putant  ;  Line  generondi 
amor  Is"  moriendi  c»ntemptu: ,  See  the  hiftory  of  Tacitus,  lib.  5.  The  Roman 
laws  which  offered  exemptions  and  privilefres  for  the  encouracement  of 
matrimony,  and  penalties  againft  the  finale  ftate,  had  lefs  effccl-  'I'he 
reafon  of  thii  is,  that  population  rather  fpringi  from  the  manners  of  the 
people,  than  from  laws  given  to  them-      Aut. 

(4)  Batcbelors  in  ■u'dr.  A  queen,  a  v;()rthy  model  of  all  fovereigns,  has 
ordered  the  ofBcers  of  her  army  tj  encourage  the  foiuitrs  to  marry,  «nJ  hai 


3^4  Letter  soF 

tilde  ;  batchelo^s  in  literature  and  philofophy,  bar- 
chelors  through  caprice  and  voluptuoufnefs,  batche- 
lors  through  :ni(ery  and  indigence  ;  batchelors,  if 
we  may  fo  exprefs  ourfelves,  even  in  the  married 
ftiite.  nd  can  you  then  pretend  to  judge  of  the 
ancient  population  of  the  Hebrews  by  your  own  ! 

You  are  perpetually  fpeaking  of  population,  and 
you  ceaie  not  to  extol  luxury  !  Luxury,  the  bane  of 
agriculture  and  morals,  the  deftroyer  of  empires,  or 
the  certain  forerunner  of  their  fall,  is  every  where 
the  obje6l  of  your  encomiums.  O  thou  cenfurer  of 
IVIofes,  how  wife  are  thy  views  refpcfting  govern- 
m.ent,  and  how  deep  thy  policy  ! 

We  might  extend  this  parallel  flill  farther  ;  you 
know  it,  fir,  but  here  we  flop.  Thefe  inftances 
fuffice  to  convince  you  that  the  Hebrew  code  yields 
r'Ot  the  palm  for  equity  and  wifdom,  to  the  codes  of 
modern  nations,  and  that  your  criticifms  on  your 
legiilatures,  and  on  the  cudoms  which  they  autho- 
rife  or  tolerate,  are  fo  many  encomiums  on  ours. 
4  We  think,  fir,  that  you  mufl  obferve  with  fatis- 
facbicii,  that  after  your  having  refle£led  deeply  oh  a 
reformaiion  in  your  laws,  you  have  propofed  nothing 
buL  vvhr.t  the  Jewifh  law-giver  ordained  three  thou- 
fand  years  before  you.  It  is  a  great  fatisfadlion  to 
ui  at  Icaft,  to  find,  that  in  the  bofoni  of  an  ignora72t 
and  vvlgar  nation,  he  has  anticipated  by  fo  many 
ages^  the  legiflative  difccveries  of  the  mofl:  fhihing 
and  univerlal  genius  of  this  philofophical  age. 

We  remain,  &c.  &c. 

provided  for  the  fupport  and  education  of  children  born  of  thefe  marriages. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  305 


LETTER     V. 


Reflexions  on  the  objed,    antiquity,   duration,  Isfc.     cf 
the  Mofaick   legijlation. 


A 


LTHO'  the  defence  which  we  have  under- 
taken of  our  legiflature,  has  already  extended  to 
a  greater  length  than  we  at  firft  propofed,  yet  we 
cannot  avoid  adding  here  feme  confiderations  on 
its  objed,  antiquity,     duration,     &;c. 

This  legiflator  is  the  glory  of  Ifrael  in  the  eyes 
of  all  nations.  It  is  the  deareft  patrimony  that  our 
fathers  have  left  us.  We  fliould  therefore  omit  no- 
thing that  can  contribute  to  make  it  known,  and 
to  give  a  jufl  notion  of  it. 

I  ft.  "  Befides  the  common  objedt  which  all 
"  governments  have  of  fupporting  them  themfelves, 
"  each  of  them  has  befides  a  peculiar  one,*'  fays 
the  illuftrious  author  of  the  Spirit  of  Laws. 
Sparta  formed  foldiers,  Rome  conquerors,  Carthage 
merchants  and  navigators,  &c.'  &c.  But  the 
Jewifh  lawgiver  has  another  objed  in  view,  that  of 
formimg  a  virtuous  people,  who  by  a  faithful  fervice 
paid  to  the  only  true  God,  fliall  give  an  example 
to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  of  a  pure  and  rea- 
fonable  worlhip.  Are  we  miftaken,  fir,  when 
we  affirm  that  this  objeft  was  more  noble  and 
more  worthy  of  a  wife  man  than  any  of  the 
former  ? 

2dly.  The  mofl:  fiimous  legiflators  made  it  a 
rule  to  change  nothing  in  the  ancient  fuperflirions, 
and  to  leave  their  people  at  full  liberty  to  proflitute 
their  adoration  to  inferior  gods,  to  the  liars,  the 
elements,  groves,  metals,   "^-c.     But  Mofes  looked 


•:o6  Letters     of 

on  it  as  a  mofl:  important  obligation,  to  inftruft  all 
the  Hebrews  in  their  duty  towards  the  great  Creator 
and  governor  of  the  world.  To  declare  to  them 
his  power,  juftice,  goodnefs,  and  providence,  and 
to  teach  them  to  deferve  an  happy  exiflence  under 
his  Almighty  protedlion,  by  an  exact  obfervance 
of  his  laws.  We  think,  fir,  that  fuch  a  conduft 
as  this  deferves  encomiums,  even  in  a  philofophical 
liffht  ! 

3dly.  What  legiflator  ever  fpoke  of  the  fupremc 
Being  to  his  people,  as  Mofes  did  to  the  Hebrews  ? 
He  gives  them  the  mofl  fublime  ideas  of  him,  and 
keeps  them  cotinually  under  the  hand  of  this  great 
God.  Every  ftep  they  make  is  to  be  regulated  by 
the  fear  and  love  of  him.  This  facred  correfpond- 
ence  between  God  and  man  ruled,  ennobled,  fanc- 
tified  our  aclions.  This  glorious  duty  no  ancient 
leglilator  ever  underflood  better  or  more  ftrongly 
recommended.  "  In  other  legiflatures,*'  fays  Jo- 
fephus,  "  piety  is  an  ingredient  of  virtue,  but  in 
*'  ours  all  the  virtues  are  fubordinate  parts  of 
"  piety. 

4thly.  This  religious  and  wife  form  of  govern- 
ment, is  at  the  fame  time  the  mofl  ancient  one 
we  know.  Minos  and  Draco,  Solon  and  Lycur- 
gus,  Zaleucus  and  Numa  are  pofterior,  by  many 
uges,  to  the  Jewilh  legiflator  :  and  altho'  it  is  not 
demonflrated  that  they  ( i )  borrowed  inflru6lion  from 
him,  yet  it  is  clear  that  he  could  take  nothing  from 
them.  In  this  remote  antiquity,  in  thofe  diflant 
ages,  to  which  the  groffell  corruption  of  morals, 
uud  the  mofl  fenfelefs,  fhameful,  and  cruel  fuper- 
ilitions  prevailed  on  every  fide,  this  great  man 
arofe,  fuperior  to,  the  prejudices, of  the  world,  and 
gave  to  his  people  an  holy  religion,  a  pure  fyftem 
of  mortality,    a   wife  and  jufl    government.     And 


(i)  Etrrn-ved injlru^itn.      A'tho'  this  faiSl  i«    not  dciTonftratcd,  yet  it  i» 
atlcaftvcry   probable.     Edit, 


CERTAIN    Jews.  307 

did  he  owe  every  thing,  do  you  imagine,   to  his  fu- 
perior  underftanding  ? 

5thly.     The  Jewifli,  of  all  ancient  lawgivers,  is 
the  moil  learned  and   virtuous.     What    reverence 
he  (liews  to  the  Divinity,  and  fubmiflion  to  its  decrees! 
Piety,    which  is  the    diflinguiiliing    character    of  his 
laws,  is    the  conflant  rule  of  all  his  aclions.    What 
love  for  his  people,  what  public  fpirit,  what  gentlenefs  ! 
He  endures  obloquy  with  patience,  he  acknowledges 
his  failings  with  candour, he  fees,  without  murmuring, 
his  brother  and  his  brother's  children  raifed  to  the 
facerdotal  office.  He  puts  them  himfelf  in  polTclTion  of 
this    dignity,     whiUl  he  leaves  his  own    children, 
mixed  in  the  crowd  of  Levites,    without   hopes    of 
ever  raifmg  (i)    any  higher.      With  all   thefe  vir- 
tues how  extenfive  his  knowledge  !  lie  is  a  pathetick 
orator,  a  fublime  poet,  an  exact   hiftorian,  a   deep 
politician,     he   unites  the  higheft   accomplifliments 
to  the  noblefl   talents.       Would   you  willi   to  know 
the  origin   of  the  world,     the  genealogies    of  our 
firft  parents,    the    fettlements    of  ancient  nations, 
the  rife  of  arts  ?   Antiquity  cannot  fupply   you  with 
more   variable    and   precious  monuments  than   his 
writings.      His  philofophy  is  not  that  barren   and 
fruitlefs  one,    whofe  fubtilty     evaporates    in  empty 
reafonings,   and  whofe    powers  fpend   themfelves  In 
difcoveries    of  no  ufe  to  the     happinefs    of  men  ; 
it  is  not  that  difaftrous  philofophy,  which,  with  an 
.  axe  in  its    hand,  and   a  veil  over    its  eyes,  throws 
down,   overturns,  deftroys  every  thing,    and  builds 
•up  nothing  ;   which  in  Its  impious  phrenzy,  makes 
matter  its  God,  which  diftingullhes  man  from  beall 
only  by  his  fhape,  and,  in  order  to  improve  him, 
fends  him  back    into  the  woods   to    difpute  for  a- 
corns  with  the  animals  that  inhabit   them.     No,   it 
is  the  wife  philofophy  of  thofe  good  men,  who  firll 


(l)     /-ny    h':gher.       Did    he    afpire  to   the  legal    power  ?      No   msn 
ever  had  a   better  opportunity  of  doing  it.     Thi»  queflioii    io  aHicd   of  4 


''oS  Letters     op 


J 


formed  the  foclal  flate,  civilized  nations,  and 
made  their  fellovv-creaturcs  happy,  by  teaching 
them  to  fubmit  to  the  yoke  of  laws.  Certain- 
ly a  perfon  of  fo  exalted  a  character  and  fo  in- 
formed a  mind,  was  able  to  give  his  people  wife 
laws. 

6thly.  But  Mofes  tells  you  that  thefe  laws  arc 
not  his  ;  he  is  only  the  interpreter  of  that  God  who 
delivered  his  people ;  in  the  name  of  that  great 
God,  and  by  commifTion  from  him,  they  were 
given  to  our  fathers.  The  obligation  to  ob- 
ferve  them  flows  from  his  fovereign  will,  which 
is  always  wife  and  jufl,  and  the  only  folid  foun- 
dation of  virtue  ;  and  the  fanctions  of  thefe  laws 
are  that  profperity,  even  temporal,  which  he  pro- 
mifes  to  them  as  the  reward  of  their  obedience ; 
and  thofe  mod  dreadful  fcourges  which  he  de- 
nounces againft  them  in  cafe  of  difobedience  ; 
thefe  fan6lions  no  other  legiflator  ever  prefumed 
(i)  to  give  tp  his  laws,  but  here  they  were  veri- 
fied by  a  wonderful  feries  of  events. 

7thly.  Other  legiflators  have  pretended  to  divine 
infpiration,  but  they  were  fcarcely  believed, 
even  during  their  lives,  and  this  belief  foon  ya- 
nlfhed  away.  T  his  is  not  the  cafe  with  regard  to 
Mofes's  divine  legation.  Our  fathers  believed  in 
it,  and  their  defcendants  do  fo  flill.  From  whence 
this  dilTerence  ?  Is  it  not  becaufe  impofition  pafle* 
awav,  but    truth  ftands  the  teft. 

Stilly.  Hence  that  inviolable  attachment  to  our 
lavv's  which  the  law-giver  has  given  us,  an  attach- 
ment without  example,  which  the  deilrudionof 
of  our  government,  the  difperfion  of  our  tribes, 
the  perfecutions  of  kings,  and  the  contempt  of  na- 
tions, have  never  been  able  to  root  out  of  our  hearts. 


/'O     To    tt'tve    li>  h'lf  Uixi's    T!i;s  is   an   ol)fervat'on   of  the  learned  Bifliop 
Wniir!>urto?i,     and     a    prool'  uf  Mol'es's  divine  legation,     ifiz  tbt  ■  Div'int 


CLRTAiN      Jews.  30^ 

Thoufands  of  Jews  have  given  up  their  lives  ra- 
ther than  renounce  thofc  laws,  or  appear  to  infringe 
them.  In  confcquence  of  this,  the  Mofaick  legifla- 
ture  is  come  dowji  to  us,  thro'  fo  many  ages  and 
revolutions,  ever  the  fame,  and  ever  refpe6lable, 
vvhilfl  nothing  remains  of  fo  many  renowned  forms 
of  government,  but  the  names,  of  the  lawgivers 
affixed  to  fome  fragments  of  their  laws.  And  not 
pnly  the  Hebrews,  but  two  thirds  of  this  habitable 
globe  revere  thefe  laws,  and  look  upon  our  law- 
giver as  divinely  jnfpired.  What  human  govcrn- 
iiient  ever  had  a  like  luccefs  ? 

pthly.  This  duration,  this  prcpetuity^  of  our 
legiflature,  this  refpect  which  it  enjoys  for  fo  many- 
ages,  and  in  fo  many  climates,  cannot  be  the  effect 
of  chance.  Can  you  account  for  it  by  natural 
means  ?  When  you  fliall  have  done  this,  (if  to  do 
it  is  poffible)  you  will  have  demonftrated  that  the 
Jewilli  was  inconteftably  the  greauefl:  of  all  human 
lawgivers,  and  that  his  people  who  are,  accor- 
ding to  you,  unworthy  of  the  notice  of  a  politiciant 
deferve  to  engrofs  his  attention  better  than  any- 
other. 

loth.  But  no,  the  finger  of  the  Lord  is  here, 
his  power  and  wifdom  Ihine  forth  tgo  clearly  here 
to  leave  any  doubts. 

CONCLUSION. 

To  conclude,  fir,  every  part  of  the  Jewifh  le- 
giflature difplays  the  high  and  divine  wifdom  of  the 
legiilator.  Its  doftrines  are  rational  and  fublime  ; 
its  religious  and  moral  precepts,  holy  and  pure  ; 
its  political,  military  and  civil  laws  are  v/ife,  equi- 
table and  mild  ;  even  its  ritual  laws  are  founded 
in  reafon ;  all  of  them-  in  fhort,  are  admirably 
fuited  to  the  defigns  and  views  of  the  legiilator,  to 
the  circumiiances  of  time,  place,  climate,  to  the  in- 
clinations of  the  Hebrews,  and  to  the  manners  of 
the    neighbouring  nations,    &c.      There  is  nolhin;; 

Rr 


3i»  LiTTERser  ^ 

in  this  Icglflature  that  contradicts  the  laws  of 
nature  or  of  virtue.  Every  thing  here  breathes  juf- 
tice,  piety,  honefty,  benevolence.  Its  object,  its 
antiquity,  its  origin,  its  duration,  the  talents  and 
virtues  of  the  legiflator,  the  refpeft  of  fo  many 
nations,  all  thefe  things  confpire  to  prove  the 
excellence  of  it.  (i)  Your  greateil  men  have 
admired  it,  and  looked  upon  it  as  the  primary 
fource  of  divine  and  human  law,  and  you,  fir, 
can  fee  nothing  in  it  but  abfurdity  and  barbar^ 
ifnu  When  you  fpoke  of  it  in  fuch  oppro- 
brious terms,  did  impartiality  guide  your  criti- 
cifm  ? 

V/e  have  thought  fit,  fir,  to  fay  thus  much 
in  defence  of  our  laws.  This  is  indeed  but  a 
poor  fi-ietch  of  an  apology,  if  compared  with 
thofe  of  fo  many  learned  chriftians  and  well-in- 
ilru£ted  Jews,  Abravanel,  Jarchi,  Maimonides, 
and  before  them,  Jofephus,  and  the  eloquent  Fhi- 
3o.  Read  their  writings,  fir,  do  ftill  a  better  thing, 
read  the  text  of  our  laws,  and  your  prejudices  w.ill 
foon  vanquifli.  You  will  foon  be  ftruck  with  the 
excellence  of  thefe  flatutes,  and  will  fay  to  your- 
felf  perhaps  not  without  confufion,  Thefe  fia- 
iutes  however  are  noblc^  and  this  people  whom  I 
have  fo  oiten  abufed,  (2)  is  a  wife  and  intelligent 
■nation. 

As  for  our  parts,  fir,  when  we  confider  the  jud 
cenfures  that  have  been  pafled  on  ancient  and  mo- 
dern governments  ;  when  we  refie£t  on  the  bane- 
ful fyllems  fet  up  in  ages  part:,  and  in  this  one  too 
by  philofophers ;  when  we  fee  the    providence  of 

(l)  Your greateH  men.  We  might  quote  the  chancellor  who,  in  our  mrn'o- 
ry,  has  done  immortal  honour  to  the  kingdom  of  France  by  his  knowledge 
and  his  virtues.  This  preat  man  had  fo  hi^'h  a  refped  for  the  Jewift  lavvs, 
Jie  thought  thsm  fo  wife  and  p^ood,  that  he  got  a  contraclipn  made  of  them, 
and  a  body  c/ycwifh  I'u-zvs  digcfled  under  proper  heads.  But  the  d'>\j.Micf- 
faus,  the  Hofpitsls,  t-h«  Bacons,  &c.  Ac.  are  but  poor  lawyers,  men 
of  weak  undeiDanding,  if  compared  with  our  modern  philofophers  I 
£dil. 

(z)  A  iv'fi  atid  intelligent  nation.     Sec  Deuteronomy,  ch.  6.  v.    r.     Ant. 


t    K    R    f    A    I    N       Jews.'  311 

Cod,  his  juflice,  even  his  exiftence  contefted  ; 
fatality  introduced,  Hberty  deflroyed  :  the  land- 
marks of  right  and  wrong  daringly  torn  up,  or 
placed  with  uncertainty  by  thefe  pretenders  to  wif- 
dom  ;  man  degraded,  all  the  bounds  of  fociety  dif- 
folved,  vain  imaginations  and  racking  doubts  fubfti- 
tuted  in  the  place  of  the  mofl:  comfortable  and  faluta- 
ry  truths,  &c.  When  we  fee  thefe  things,  ourfpirit 
is  ftirred  up  at  all  thofe  errors,  and  we  cannot  help 
thinking  ourfelves  happy  in  having  been  preferved 
from  them  by  fuch  reafonable  and  holy  laws.  0 
Ifrael  happy  are  we,  for  the  things  that  are  pleafing  to 
God  are  made  known  unto  us.  He  hath  not  dealt  fo{i^ 
with  any  nation. 


We  remain^  &c. 

ft)  JVith  tiny  naticfi.     See  BariiA    ch.  4.  and  Pf.  148* 


31^  Letterso^ 

LETTER     VI. 


The  que/lim  is  exajnined  ivheiher  the  yeic'ijh  lazv  au- 
thor'tfed  and  commanded  human  facrificcs. 


JL  O  the  general  charges  of  abfurdity  and  barba- 
rifm,  which  you  lay  on  the  Jewifh  nation,  you  add 
a  particular  one.  If  we  are  to  believe  you,  this 
juft  and  mild  government  authorized  and  command- 
ed human  facrifices.  This  fhocking  calumny  appears 
to  you  fo  well  grounded,  that  you  are  perpetually 
upbraiding  us  with  it.  You  charged  us  with  it  in 
your  iirft  tradts,  and  you  repeat  it  in  your  new 
ones.  It  is  to  be  found  again  in  your  Toleration  ; 
it  has  appeared  again  in  your  Philofophy  of  Hiltory, 
in  the  Philofophical  Dictionary,  5cc.  fo  fond  are  you 
of  inculcating  it  on  your  readers,  fo  fure  you  are 
of  pleafmg  in  the  midll  of  the  mofl  (i)  tirefome -re- 
petitions ! 

It  muft  be  granted,  'however,  that  altho'  you  have 
often  repeated  this  charge,  you  are  not  the  firft  that 
has  laid  it  to  us.  Several  EngJifh  free-thinkers  have 
mentioned  it  (2)  before  you.  As  you  do  little  more 
than  tranfcribe  the  arguments  of  thefe  writers,  it 
will  be  a  fufHcient  anfwer  here  to  lay  before  you  what 
their  learned  countrymen  (3)  have  replied. 

§  I .  //  is  alloived  that  fome  among  the  Jezvs  hai-e 
offered  human  facrijices  to  the  Gods  of  the  Canaanites. 

Thefe  facrifices   condemned  by   the    law.     The    law 

mentions  them  wiih  horror, 

(l)  Tirefome  repetitions.  Mr.  Voltaire  hinifelf  a!!ow3,  that  for  fome 
time  he  has  bf  en  fond  nf  repealing 'ivhat  he  had  j  aid  before,  Wc  frankly  own 
ourfclves  not  to  be  of  the  number  of  thofe  who  think  fuch  rtfpel|iiion  s  agree- 
able.     Edit. 

(a)  Before  you,  Ste  Chri/ltjnity  as  old  as  th:  creation  by  TiitJul  and  Mirg  in'j 
^laiul  P'uilufopher.      Aut- 

(3)  Have  replied,  iie  et^czhWY  Z)<i^er  Lcli/nd's  anfzftr  to  d.c  tvfo  woiki 
abuvc-mcntioni:d. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  313 

Such  was  the  deplorable  blindnefs  of  men  for  a 
long  time,  that  they  thought  they  did  things  ac- 
ceptable to  God  when  they  offered  up  their  fellow- 
creatures  to  him.  Moft  nations  looked  upon  thefe 
facrifices  as  the  fureft  means  of  appeafmg  Heaven, 
and  averting  its  vengeance.  This  barbarous  piece 
of  fuperftition  was  fpread  even  thro'  the  moil  po- 
liflied  and  enlightened  nations  of  the  ancient  and 
the  new  world,  but  it  prevailed  chiefly  among 
the  Canaanites.  Thefe  religious  cruelties,  which 
were  not  pradifed  in  other  places,  but  upon  extra- 
ordinary occafions,  were  common  amongft  them. 
For  thefe  ambominations  chiefly,  God  had  deter- 
mined to  cut  them  ofl*,  and  Mofes  had  mofi:  exprefs- 
ly  forbid  this  deteftable  worfliip  to  his  people.  Thou 
Jhalt  not,  (i)  fays  he,  let  any  of  thy  feed  pafs  thvo'  the 
fire  to  Moloch.  Defile  not  yourf elves  in  any  of  thefe 
things^  for  in  all  thefe  the  nations  are  defiled  'which  I 
cafl  out  before  you.  And  a  little  lower.  For  whoever 
he  be  of  the  children  of  Ifrael,  or  cf  the  fir  angers  that 
fojourn  in  Ifrael,  that  giveth  any  of  his  feed  unto  Mc' 
loch,  he  fhall  furcly  be  put  to  death,  the  people  of  the 
land  fldall flone  him  with  fiones.  And  if  the  people  of 
the  land  do  any  ways  hide  their  eyes  from  the  man,  when 
he  giveth  of  his  feed  u?ito  Moloch,  and  kill  him  not^ 
then  I  willfet  my  face  againji  that  man,  and  againft 
his  family,  and  will  cut  him  off,  and  all  that  go  a  whot-^ 
ing  after  him. 

But  v^'c  cannot  conceal  it.  Notwlthflanding  all 
.the  precautions  which  the  legiflator  took,  and  the 
prohibitions  he  iflTued,  this  infamous  worlhip  intro- 
duced itfelf  amongft  our  anceftors,  and  the  fcripture, 
in  many  places,  upbraids  them  bitterly  with  it.  They 
were  mingled  among  the  heathen,  fays  (2)  thePfalmili, 
and  learned  their  works,  and  jhed  innccent  bloody 
even  the  blood  of  their  fans,  'and  of  their  daughters y 
whom  they  facrificed  unto  the  idols  of  Cf^naan,  end  the 
land  was  polluted  with  blood.     Go  forth  fays  the  Lcrd 

(1)  Hast  be.     See  Leviticus,  ch.  20.  v.  31.  ar.d  ch.  ao,  v.  j, 
(,2;   'Tie  f/u!mi,h     Pfaloi   I9«.  V.  .57.  &c. 


/> 


14-  Letters     of 


(i)  to  Jeremiah,  bito  the  valley  of  the  f on  of  HinnvTn^ 
and  fay  ^  hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord^  0  kings  of  fu^ 
da,  and  inhabitants  of  jferufalem,  thus  faith  the  Lord 
of  hcfis,  the  God  of  Ifrael,  behold  I  will  bring  evil  up- 
on this  place^  the  which  whofccver  heareth,  his  ears 
ihall  tingle.  Becaufe  they  have forfakcn  me,  and  have 
cfiranged  this  place,  and  have  burnt  incenfe  in  it  unto 
other  gods,  ivhoni  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  have 
knozun,  nor  the  kings  of  fudah,  and  have  filled  this 
place  with  the  blood  of  innocents.  They  have  luilt  alfe 
the  high  places  of  Baal,  to  burn  their  fons  with  fire  f of- 
burnt-offerings  unto  Baal,  which  I  commanded  not ^  nor 
fpake  it,  neither  came  it  into  my  mind.  Therefore  be^ 
hold  the  days  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that  this  place  [hall 
no  more  be  called  Tophet,  nor  the  valley  of  the  f on  of 
Hinnom,  but  the  valley  offlaughter. 

You  fee,  fir,  when  and  to  whom  thefe  Ifraeh'tes, 
unworthy  of  that  name,  offered  thofe  abominable 
facrifices.  It  was  not  to  their  God.  It  happened 
when  they  were  forfaking  him  for  llrange  Gods,  or 
when,  in  contempt  of  the  law,  they  mixed  the  .im- 
pure rites  of  idolatrous  worfliip  with  the  fervice 
which  the  law  prefcribes.  But  you  fee  alfo  what 
honor  Mofes  and  the  prophets  infpired  them  with> 
for  thefe  fhocking  praftices. 

§  2.  That  the  Jewijh  law,  fo  far  from  commandiJig 
or  approving  the  offering fuch  facrifices  to  God,  eapreff- 
ly  forbad  it. 

You  tell  us  however  with  an  air  of  confidence, 
which  you  know  how  to  alfume,  but  which  now  no 
longer  deceives  any  one,  that  altho'  the  Jewiih  law 
condemns  facrifices  of  human  blood,  offered  by  the 
Jews  to  the  Gods  of  the  Canaanites,  yet  it  commands 
thfem  to  offer  fuch  to  their  own  God  ;  that fuch  fa- 
crifices are  clearly  ordained  by  the  laws  of  this  detcjia- 
hie  people,  and  that  there  is  no  point  of  hi/iory  better 
afcertained. 

We  mufl  own  it,  fir,  thefe  expreffions  of  <^if/(f/?<7- 
hle^  execrable  people,  always  furprize  us  in  your  writ- 

(i)   Ttjercmlub.     Cb.  19    v,  %.  &tt. 


CERTAIN     Jews.  3  i  r; 

Ings.  We  think  that  thefe  angry  epithets  ought  not 
to  be  found  in  the  works  of  a  pohte  writer,  and  an 
humane  and  tender  philofopher.  Pray  is  this  con- 
formable to  French  poHtenefs  ?  Is  this  the  modera- 
tion which  the  fpirit  of  philofophy  infpires  you  with  ? 

However,  let  us  fay  no  more  concerning  abufe, 
let  us  anfwcr  your  cliarge,  and  fee  whether  your 
confident  afTertions  have,  I  will  not  fay  certainty, 
but  even  the  (hadow  of  probability. 

lit.  If  we  are  not  miftaken,  it  is  hard  to  read 
the  paflages  we  have  quoted,  and  efpecially  thefe 
words  of  Jeremiah,  things  'which  1  commanded  wc/, 
?ior  /pake  it,  neither  cajne  it  into  my  inind,  without 
feeing  that  it  is  not  only  the  deftination,  but  the 
barbarity  of  thofe  facrifices  which  the  law  cenfures, 
and  the  prophets  condemn. 

2dly.  If  the  God  of  the  Jews  had  approved  of 
fuch  facrifices,  would  he  have  flopped  the  hand  of 
Abraham,  who  was  offering  up  his  fon  to  him  ?  Sa- 
tisfied with  this  trial  of  his  fervant's  faith  and  obe- 
dience, he  forbids  him  to  ftretch  his  arm  over  fo  dear 
a  viftim,  and  fubftitutes  another  into  its  place.  Does 
not  this  condutt,  at  a  time  when,  according  to  you, 
the  Canaanites  were  beginning  to  facrifice  their  chil- 
dren to  their  divinities,  fhew  that  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham did  not  refemble  the  gods  of  thefe  idolater?, 
who  delitjhted  to  fee  innocent  blcod  flowlnfr-  The 
refufal  of  this  vidim,  in  thefe  circumflances,  war? 
doubtlefs  a  ftriking  lelTon,  by  which  God,  whild  he 
made  a  trial  of  Abraham's  faith,  meant  to  give  a 
perpetual  leffon  to  this  holy  man  and  to  his  pofterity, 
of  his  abhorrence  of  thefe  barbarous  fupcrflitions. 

3dly.  If  thefe  facrihces  had  been  prefcribed  or 
approved  by  the  law,  would  it  have  been  fo  difficult 
to  find  examples  of  them  ?  And  how  could  thcv  bs 
fo  uncommon  ?  How  happens  it  that  fo  many  holy 
m.en,  fo  many  pious  kings,  David,  Jofias,  Aza,  ]o- 
fnphat,  Hezckias,  c^c.  never  olfered  fuch  facrificss, 
if  the  law  prefcribed  and  authorized  them,  and  ne- 
>cr  had  recourfe  to  fo  powerful  an  engine  far  ob- 


3i6  Letters     of 

taining  God's  affiftance  in  thofe  perilous  circum- 
ftances,  to  which  fome  of  them  were  reduced  ?  Is 
there  not  great  reafon  to  believe,  that  if  thefe  facri- 
fices  had  been  permitted,  they  would  have  been 
more  common  ?  We  may  judge  of  this  by  other  na- 
tions. 

4thly.  The  Jewifh  law  enters  into  the  mod:  mi- 
nute detail  with  refpecl  to  facrifices  ;  it  points  out 
what  kinds  of  quadrupeds  and  birds  might  be  offered 
unto  the  Lord,  their  qualities,  the  times  and  cir- 
cumflances  in  which  they  were  to  be  offered,  the 
manner  of  preparing  them  for  facrifice,  the  ceremo- 
nies which  ought  to  accompany  it,  &c.  If  then 
this  law  had  ordered  men  to  be  facrificed,  if  it  had 
looked  on  human  viftims  as  the  moft  acceptable  of- 
ferings unto  the  Lord,  is  it  polTible  that  it  fliould 
have  prefcribed  nothing  with  regard  to  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  belonging  to  thefe  facrifices  ?  Would 
it  not  have  determined  what  perfons  might  and 
fhould  be  oiferqd  up  ?  On  what  occafions  and  in 
what  manner  this  was  to  be  done  ?  Yet  there  is  no 
account  of  this,  not  one  regulation  with  regard  to 
thefe  objeds.  We  dare  affirm  it,  fir,  this  filcnce 
of  the  law  is  a  demonflration  that  it  neither  requir- 
ed nor  approved  thefe  bloody  facrifices. 

5thly,  But  this  is  not  all.  The  Jevv'ifh  law  ex- 
prefsly  forbids  offering  fuch  facrifices  to  the  Lord. 
This  paffage  may  be  found  in  the  42d  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy,  verfes  29th  and  30th.  Thus  we  read, 
Wbc72  the  Lord  thy  God  Jljall  cut  off  the  7iations,  (the 
Canaanites)  fro7n  before  thee^  ivhither  thou  gocjl  to 
fofjlfs  ihevi,  and  thou  fuccce deft  thcm^  and  divcllefi  in 
their  la?ids,  ""lake  heed  to  thyfclf  that  thou  be  notfnar- 
ed  by  following  them^  after  that  they  be  deftroyedfrom 
before  thee,  and  that  thou  enquire  not  after  their  gods, 
faying^  how  did  thefe  nations  ferve  their  gods  ?  Even 
fo  will  I  do  likewife^  thou  fh alt  not  do  fo  unto  the  Lord 
ihv  God,  for  eve'ry  abomination  unto  the  Lord  which  he 
hateth,  have  they  done  unto  their  gods,  for  even  their 
fens  and  the.r  daughters  have  ihey  burnt  in  the  fre  tg 


CERTAIN     Jews.  317 

their  gods.  It  is  clear  that  God  in  this  place,  not 
only  forbids  his  people  to  honour  the  gods  of  ihe 
Canaanites,  but  to  imitate  the  manner  in  which  they 
honoured  them.  He  plainly  declares  that  thefo  fa- 
cfifices  of  their  fons  and  daughters,  are  rites  abomi- 
nable in  his  eyes,  a  wordiip  which  he  abhors  and  de- 
tefts.  Thou  JJjah  not  do  fo  unto  the  Lord  thy  God^ 
tvbat  things  fdever  1  command  you  obferve  to  do  it,  thou 
Jhalt  not  add  thereto  nor  diminijh  from  it.  Truly,  fir, 
after  fo  clear  a  prohibition,  adtled  to  all  the  former 
reflexions,  to  believe  or  maintain  that  the  Jewifli  law 
commanded  or  authorifed  human  facrifices,  is  volun- 
tary blindaefs,  and  a  druggie  againfl:  evidence. 

§    3.     ObjcHion    drawn  from    Leviticus ^    ch.    27. 
V.    29.  anfwcred. 

Yet  you  make  an  objection  vi^hich  muft  be  anfwer- 
ed.  The  book  of  Leviticus,  you  fay,  in  {')  v.  27.  of 
CO.  29.  exprefsly  forbids  redeeming  thofe  zvho  have 
besn  devoted,  it  fays  thefe  very  words,  they  mud  die/ 
(Premiers  Melanges.)  And  in  another  place  you  af- 
firm, that  //  was  exprefsly  ordered  by  the  Jewijh  law 
to  facrifice  men  devoted  to  the  Lord.  No  ?uan  devoted 
Jhall  be  redeemed,  but  fhall  furely  be  put  to  death.  The 
Vulgate  renders  it,  nonrcdimettir,  fedmorte  morietur, 
Philofoph.  Did.  Art.  Jephtha. 

But  iince  it  is  certain,  as  we  have  (hewn,  that  the 
Jewifh  law,  fo  far  from  requiring  or  approving  hu- 
man facrifices,  clearly  prohibited  them,  there  is 
Itrong  reafon  to  believe  that  the  pafuige  of  Leviticus 
which  you  quote,  is  fufceptible  of  a  diifcrent  meaning- 
from  v/hat  you  give  it,  and  this  meaning  is  obvious. 

If  you  had  taken  the  trouble  of  readinv]^  with  at- 
tention,  and  in  the  original,  this  ciiaptcr  of  Leviti- 
cus, you  would  have  feen,  fir,  that  in  the  iirfl;  part 
of  it,  it  fpeaks  of  the  Neder  or  fimple  vow,  after 
which  it  was  lawful  to  redeem  what  was  vowed  unto 

.S  f 

(i)  27  '0  1(),'L  ell.  It  fhoiild  be  Jpth  v.  of  ayth  ch.  fcr  the  book  of 
L'!viticu<  has  not  29  cb-jpt.;rs.  This  is  a  typojrraphical  error,  whicil  mufb 
kc  c«rreilcd  iii  the  asw  ciliuo*  of  Mr.  Vfltairo's  worki.     £Jit. 


3i5  Letters     of 

the  Lord,  and  that  in  the  28th  verfe  it  fpeaks  of  the 
Cherem  a  particular  and  voluntary  vow. 

The  Cherem  was  a  vow  of  indifpenfibic  obliga- 
tion. It  was  an  irrevocable  aft  of  devoting,  accom- 
panied with  an  oath,  an  abfolute  confecration  and 
without  return,  by  which  a  perfon  gave  up  to  the 
Lord  all  his  rights  to  a  certain  thing.  Every  Ifraelite 
might  thus  devote  hi$  property,  qua  habct,  qua 
illius  funt.  His  houfe,  his  lands,  his  cattle,  his 
flaves,  &c.  and  the  things  thus  devoted  could  not  be 
redeemed  for  any  price  whatfoever.  Unclean  ani- 
mals were  fold  for  the  benefit  of  the  fanduary,  and 
fuch  as  were  clean  were  offered  up,.  The  lands,  the 
houfes,  which  could  not  be  offered  up,  remained  the 
property  of  the  temple  and  of  its  minifters*  The 
men,  that  is  children  and  flaves,  for  thefe  were  the 
only  perfons  that  belonged  to  the  father  of  the  fami- 
ly, and  the  only  ones  he  could  devote,  v^^ere  not  fa- 
crificed  ;  they  were  confecrated  to  the  Lord,  and 
employed  during  their  whole  lives,  in  the  fervice  of 
the  temple  and  of  the  priefl:s.  In  this  fenfe  all  the 
Jewiih  writers,  who  in  all  probabiHty  under/land 
their  laws,  explain  this  28th  verfe. 

But  in  the  29th  verfe  which  you  quote  by  itfelf, 
»nd  on  which  you  lay  the  greateft  ftrefs  this  Cherem^ 
■particular  and  'voluntary  i-ow^x^  no  longer  concerned. 
This  verfe  relates  only  to  thofe  things  and  perfons 
"xvhich  are  devoted  to  deilruction  by  \\\q  penal  Cher  cm  y 
cr  folemn  anathema^  denounced  by  publick  a!u- 
thority.  Such  were  the  Canaanites,  devoted  by  God 
liimlelf  to  deftruclion,  as  a  punifliment  for  their  de- 
teftable  abominations.  And  the  inhabitants  of  Jeri- 
cho have  this  folemn  anathema  pronounced  againfl 
them  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Jofhua,  1 7th  and  1 8th  ver- 
fes.  It  is  alfo  pronounced  in  the  3  2d  chapter  of  Exo- 
dus, and  13th  of  Deuteronomy,  againfl  every  indivi- 
dual and  city  of  Ifrael,  which  fliould  fall  into  idola- 
try, and  offer  facrifice  to  any  other  God  but  the 
Lord.     We  fee  another  example  of  it  in  the  book  of 


CERTAIN      J   fi    W   ■S.  ^ig 

Judges,  ch.  21.  V.  5.  where  the  congregation  of  the 
people  of  Ifrael  is  laid  under  this  anathema,  and  en- 
gaged to  put  all  thofe  to  death  who  would  not  meet 
atMafphatto  fight  againfl:  the  Benjamites.  And  in 
confequence  of  this  anathema,  the  inhabitants  of  Ja- 
befh  Gilead,  who  did  not  go  to  the  place  appointed, 
were  all  fmote  with  the  edge  of  the  fword.  All  per- 
fons  thus  devoted  were  to  be  cut  off  as  execrable  and 
aecurfed.  Noranfom  of  whatfoever  value,  could  be 
accepted  for  them.  They  were  put  to  death  without 
mercy,  but  they  were  not  facrificed.  The  punifh- 
ment  ol  death  and  facrifice  are  different  things.  There 
is  fome  difference  between  thefe  ideas.  The  con- 
founding of  them  implie?  ignorance  or  diflionefty. 

This  chapter  of  Leviticus  is  to  be  taken  in  this  fenfe 
according  to  the  opinion  of  all  our  ancient  and  mo- 
dern writers,  and  their  unanimous  confent  ought, 
we  think,  to  be  of  fome  weight,  at  leafl  when  the 
knowledge  of  our  laws  and  cuftoms  is  in  queftion. 

This  interpretation,  which  you  fee  is  not  new,  re- 
conciles this  whole  paffage  of  Leviticus  perfe6lly  well 
with  that  horror  which  the  fcripture  breaths  every 
where  againfl  homicide  in  general,  and  againfl  reli- 
gious murders  in  particular,  and  with  the  very  clear 
:and  exprefs  prohibitions  which  we  have  quoted  out 
-of  Deuteronomy.  It  has  befides  the  advantage  of 
being  conformable  to  the  conflant  practice  of  the  Jew- 
ifh  nation,  in  which  there  is  noinflance  of  a  mafler  fa- 
crificing  his  flaves  to  the  Lord,  or  of  a  father  his  chil- 
dren, except  perhaps  that  of  Jephtha,  ©f  which  we 
fhall  fay  a  few  words  here. 

§4.0/'  Jephtha,  Whether  he  really  offered  up  his 
daughter  J  and  ivhether  this  facrifice^  f''''Ppofing  it  realy 
was  according  to  thejpirit  of  the  law. 

You  begin,  fir,  by  deciding  the  queflion.     //  ap^- 
pears  clearly,  you  fay,  in  the  treatife  on  Toleration, 
h    thi    text  of  fcripture    that  Jephtha  facrificed  his 
daughter.    To  which  you  add  in  the  Pbilofophical  Dic- 
tionary.   It  is  evident  by  the  text  of  the  book  ef  Judges, 


22,0  L    E    T    T    E    R    3       O    r 

ihsit  Jephtha  promifed  to  facr'ifice  the  fir  fl  per  [on  ivho 
Jhoiild  ^0  out  c/f  his  houje  to  uujh  h}?n  joy  of  his  vidcry. 
His  only  daughter  ?net  him  ;  .he  tore  off  his  garments  and 
facrijiced  her,  nftsr  having  permitted  her  to  go  and 
weep  on  the  fnountains  the  ?fiisf'ortune  cf  dying  a  maid, 
Ijland  to  the  tcxt^  Jephtha  devoted  his  daughter  as  an 
ivhole  burnt  offering,  and  he  offered  her  up. 

If  you  (land  to  the  text  you  are  right,  fir.  No- 
thing remains  but  to  know  whether  you  underftand 
it  well.  But  when  you  fay  that  Jephtha  promifed  to 
facrifice  the  firji  perfcn  who  Jhculd  go  out  cf  his  houfe 
to  wijh  him  joy  if  his  vitlory,  and  that  he  permitted  his 
dau,^;hter  to  go  and  weep  on  the  mountains  for  thf, 
misfortune  of  dying  a  maid,  is  this  ftanding  to  the  text, 
or  accommodating  it  to  your  own  ideas  ?  Where  do 
you  find  in  the  text  this  luijhing  joy  and  thi^  misfcr- 
iuns  of  dying  a  maid?  Others  can  fee  notliing  in  it 
but  a  vow  to  facrifice,  not  thefrjlpcrfon,  but  the  fir  ft 
thing  that  ffjould prefcnt  itfef  ivhen  he  entered  his  houfe ^ 
and  the  permiilion  given  to  the  girl  is  this,'  to  go  and 
bewail  her  virginity,' 2iTi.<\  not  the  misfortune  of  dying 
a  maid.  Thefe  expreffions  are  not  quite  of  the  fame 
import.  Your's  decide  the  queflion,  thofe  of  the 
the  text  leave  it  undetermined. 

And  here,  what  appears  to  you  evident  and  certain 
by  the  text,  has  appeared  very  doubtful  to  many 
learned  men,  Tews  (i)  and  chridians.  '1  hey  think, 
on  the  contrary,  and  with  good  reafon,  that  Jcph- 
tha's  daughter  was  never  really  facrificed,  but  only 
confecrated  to  the  fervice  of  the  tabernacle  in  perpe- 
tual virginity  ;  and  that  this  confecration,  this  ne- 
cefuty  of  pcilling  her  days  in  celibacy,  a  ftace  mod 
humbling  in  the  fight  of  all  JewiHi  women,  compell- 
ed her   to  go  and   weep  upon  the  mountains,  and 

(i)  /ind clriPians,  Sec  among  othf rs,  v. bat  fhr  ieorrc<1  cc^'lv€nt^trrf  on 
xh.e  Hiic'iifH  Bifilc,  and  on  the  Us)ivci(a!  Hiilory,  hav:-  (aid  on  this  frljtd. 
Add  to  thcfc  Gr otitis,  l,e  C'lcrc,  Father  Houhi^reant,  a  new  dilllrtatirn  late- 
ly given  by  Mr.  Bavcr,  but  ffpeci-dlly  SchuJt,  who  hus  coIUiSrd  the  left  thin};s 
tlv<t  havi:  been    aid  in  i-vcul:  cf  llie  ctufttratiwi  of  Jrphtha's  daughter   to 


C    E    R    T    A    I    N     J    E    W    S.  ^tt 

drew  tears  from  her  unhnppy  father,  who  by  this 
was  deprived  of  all  hopes  of  feeing  any  offspring 
from  his  darling  child. 

However,  fir,  if  we  did  allow  that  this  facrifice 
was  real,  as  many  of  our  writers  ancient  and  mo- 
dern have  fuppofed,  would  it  follow  from  this,  that 
it  was  according  to  the  foirit  of  the  law  ?  Jephtha 
might  think  himielf  obliged  to  offer  it,  but  was  Jeph- 
tha infallible  ?  Might  he  not  have  been  led  aflray  by 
a  zeal  without  underftanding,  by  a  fcrupulous  and 
erroneous  attachnTent  to  his  imprudent  vow  ?  Is  it 
by  the  example  of  a  fmgle  fallible  man,  or  by  the 
conftant  practice  of  a  nation,  and  by  the  very  text  of 
the  law,  that  the  fenfe  of  this  law  is  to  be  afcertain- 
ed  ?  If  Jephrha  aded  only  in  obedience  to  a  clear  and 
known  law, 'if  this  vow  flowed  from  zeal  and  piety^ 
and  the  execution  of  it  proceeded  from  a  laudable 
firmnefs,  how  comes  it  that  it  never  had  any  imita- 
tors ?  Why  did  not  the  infpired  writers  in  anyplace 
praife  this  adion,  or  propofe  it  as  a  model  ?  In  this 
cafe  would  St.  Auflin,  and  almofl:  all  the  fathers  of 
the  chrrch,  have  cenfured,  it  as  you  fay  they  have 
done  ?  And  would  all  thofe  writers  ancient  and  mo- 
dern, who  have  believed  the  facrince  to  be  real,  join- 
ed with  Jolcphus  in  faying,  that  it  wds  neither  con- 
forma  ''/e  to  the  law,  nor  agreeable  to  God, 

But  the  Icripturefays,  that  Jephtha  was  filed  with 
thefpirit  of  God^  and  St.  Paul,  in  his  epi/tle  to  the  He- 
brews, praifes  Jephtha,  and  plr.ces  him  with  Samuel 
and  David.    (Toleration,  article,  if  intolerance,  kc.) 

Yes,  fir,  the  fcripture  fays  that  Jephcha  was  filled 
with  the  fpirit  of  God  ;  but  it  does  not  fay  any 
where  that  this  happened  when  he  devoted  his  daugh- 
ter and  fulfilled  his  vow.  And  it  appears  to  us  that 
chriltians  prove  farisfadorily,  that  if  .St.  Paul  places 
Jephtha  in  the  lid  of  the  heroes  of  Ifrael,  it  is  not  on 
account  of  this  facrifice,  of  which  he  docs  not  fpeak, 
altho'  he  mentions  that  of  Abraham. 

But  you  add  again,  Sf.  Jerom,  in  his  epifle  to  Ju- 
lian, fa -js,  Jephtha  offered  up  his  daughter  to  the  Lor d. 


3-22  Letters     of 

and  on  account  of  this,  ihe  apqflle  places  him  in  the  liji 
of  faints,  God,  fays  don  Calmet,  does  not  approve 
thcfe  vows,  but  when  they  are.  made  he  will  have  them 
executed,  were  it  only  to  punifb  thofe  who  make  thcnu 
Ibidem. 

St.  Jerom,  fir,  was  one  of  the  mofl  learned  men 
of  his  time  ;  he  underftood  our  language,  our  hif- 
tory,  our  geography,  hz.  But  we  do  not  take  him 
for  an  infallible  authority,  even  among  chriftian?, 
nor  Don  Calmet  neither.  However,  when  St.  Je- 
rom faid  that  Jephtha  was  accounted  a  faint  for  fa- 
crificing  his  daughter,  he  alfo  faid,  that  it  was  not 
the  offering,  but  the  intention  of  the  offerer  which 
was  pleafmg  to  the  Lord,  Nonfacrifcium  placet,  fed 
ani?mts  offereniis.  This  is  the  obfervaticn  of  Don 
Calmet,  to  whom  you  are  indebted  for  the  quota- 
tion out  of  the  cpiille  to  Julian,  which  you  proba- 
bly never  read. 

Since  then  it  is  not  certain  that  Jephtha's  facrifice 
was  real,  and  that  even  if  it  was  real,  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  conform.able  to  the  law  ;  this  ex- 
ample proves  nothing  in  favour  of  your  hypothefis. 
The  others  \yhich  you  produce  are  as  v.'eak. 

§  5 .   Other  pretended  epcumples  of  human  facrifces. 
Of  Aga^,  of  the  thirty  two  thoufand   Madianite  wo-     ' 
vien.  of  fonathan,  Iffc. 

You  look  upon  the  death  ot  Agag,  fir,  as  a  confe- 
quence  of  the  Levitlcal  law.  Jt  was  yon  fay,  (Trea-  , 
tife  of  Toleration,  and  in  other  places,  for  this 
charge  is  often  repeated)  in  virtue  of  this  law,  that  Sa- 
fiiuel  cut  Agag  in  pieces,  whom  Said  had  pardoned,  and 
it  was  even  for  having  f pa  red  Agag  that  Said  was  re- 
proved  of  the  Lord. 

You  are  right,  fir,  but  fmce  the  law  was  fo  ex- 
prefs,  was  not  Saul  wrong  in  tranfgrening  it  r  We 
mull  obferve  however  that  Agag,  who  lay  under  the 
anathenia  pronounced  agaiuH  the  Amalekites,  as  be- 


/^ 


..  -  ■  ■'■■ 


CERTAIN     Jews.  323 

ing  one  of  them,  was  put  to  death  for  another  rea- 
{on  befides,  for  his  perfonal  cruelty.  Js  thy /word j 
fays  Samuel,  when  he  is  putting  him  to  death,  hath 
made  lijomen  childlejs^  Jo  foall  thy  mother  be  childlefs 
among  women.  What  reafon  then  could  there  be  for 
any  tendernefs  towards  this  barbarous  man  ? 

You  conclude  from  his  death,  that  the  Jews  offered 
up  human  njidims,  wilnejs^  you  fay,  king  Agag  cut  in 
pieces.  In  reality^  %ve  may  look  on  the  death  of  Agag 
as  a  realfacrifice.  In  this  fatal fcene  we  fee  a  vow,  a 
fried^  a  victim,  it  was  therefore  a  true  facrifce. 
(Treatife  of  Toleration.) 

No,  fir,  Agag  cut  in  pieces,  does  not  prove  that  the 
Jews  offered  hum.an  facrifices  to  God.  He  is  put  to 
death,  not facrifced.  And  to  fay  that  we  perceive 
here  aprieft,  avidim,  hz.  and  that  it  was  therefore 
a  true  facrificc,  is  a  play  of  words.  By  a  ftratageni 
unworthy  of  you,  and  which  can  fcarcely  miilead  any 
one,  you  conclude  from  the  figurative  fignificatioii 
of  a  word  to  the  proper  one. 

There  is  not  more  truth  in  what  you  fay,  (Philo- 
fophy  of  Mi(tory,  article.  Human  Viaims)  fpeaking 
ot  the  Madianites,  that  Mofes  commanded  all  the 
males  to  be  put  to  death,  but  the  females  to  be  preferved, 
of  which  thirty. tivo  only  were  offered  unto  the  Lord, 
And  (Treatife  of  Toleration)  you  fay,  that  many  com- 
mentators affert  that  thirty-two  girls  were  offered  unto 
the^  Lord^  Ceiferunt  in  partem  Domini  triginta  dux 
animse. 

Thefe  thirty-two  girls  were  that  part  of  the  fpoil 
which  was  referved  for  the  Lord.  They  were  in- 
tended to  ferve  in  his  tabernacle  as  flaves,  therefore 
they  u-erc  not  facrificed.  If  many  commentators  af- 
fert that  they  were  facrificed,  they  afiert  it  falfely. 
The  text  does  not  fay  it,  or  rather  it  implies  quite 
the  contrary.     Believe  us,  fir,  keep  to  the  text. 

-But  farther  you  fay,  (Premiers  Melanges)  that  in 
obedience  to  this  law^  the  Levitical  Law,  Saul  wanted  to 


433  Letters     OF 

offer  t(p  his  Jon.  The  firji  Jeivift)  king  offered  tip  wen* 
He  f wo  re  he  ivould  offer  up  unto  the  Lord  the  man  i.jat 
Jhould  eat.  Luckily  the  nation  was  wifer  than  h.niy 
and  would  not  faff er  the  king's  fori  to  be  facrificed,  for 
having  eaten  a  little  honey. 

The  fir Jl  Jeijuijh  king  offered  up  men  !  What  men  did 
he  facrijice  ?  When  and  where  ?  Be  fo  good  as  to  in- 
form your  readers.  What  a  notion  mud  we  form  of 
you,  fir,  when  we  hear  you  affirming  coolly  fuch  pal- 
pable falfehoods !  Altho'  you  have  no  refpefl  for  pof- 
terity  or  the  prefent  generation,  'yet  reverence  your- 
felf. 

He /wore  to  offer  Unto  the  Lord  the  man  that  foould 
eat.  No,  fir,  he  did  not  do  this.  He  prohibiteei 
eating,  and  fwore  to  put  any  one  to  death,  who 
Jfhould  tranfgrefs  this  order.  Jonathan  wouJd  have 
been  put  to  death  for  having  difobeyed  the  order  of 
his  general,  and  having  incurred  by  his  difobedience 
thatcurfe,  that  punilhment  which  had  been  juft  de- 
nounced, but  he  would  not  have  been  facrificed  to 
the  Lord.  To  be  punifhed  capitally  is  not  to  be  fa- 
crificed. When  your  kings  engage  by  oath  never  to 
pardon  duellifts,  and  that  in  confequence  of  this, 
fuch  offenders  are  put  to  death,  is  this  a  facrilice  of- 
fered unto  the  Lord  ? 

§  6.  JVhether  it  is  a  difpute  of  words ^  that  the  Jews 
facrificed  men  to  the  divinity  or  not. 

Laftly,  we  read  the  following  extraordinary  rea- 
foning  in  your  P>lelanges.  "  Learned  men  have  can-' 
*'  vailed  this  queftion,  whether  the  Jews  really  facri- 
"  ficed  men  to  God,  as  fo  many  other  nations  did. 
"  This  is  a  verbal  difpute.  Thofe  whom  this  nation 
*'  devoted,  were  not  llaughtered  on  an  altar  with  re- 
"  Hglous  rites,  but  notwithltanding  they  were  really 
*'  oftered  up." 

If  learned  7nen  have  canva/fed  this  qvefiion, 
it  is  a  proof  that  they  have  fometimes  canvafled  very 
ridiculous  ones.  They  mufl  have  known  how  much 
the  Jcvviili  law  cdideumcd  thefe  praclices  of  idolx- 


CERTAIN     Jews.  325 

ters,  and  this  was  fufncient  to  perfuade  them  that  the 
law  never  prefcribed  thefe  lacriMces. 

//  is  a  dlfpute  about  words .  If  it  is  fo,  and  ycu 
look  upon  it  as  fuch,  why  do  you  return  to  it  fo  of- 
ten ?  Why  do  you  repeat  it  over  and  over  to  us  in  fo 
many  different  ways  ?  A  difpute  about  words  ought 
not  to  engage  fo  much  of  your  attention. 

But  agr.ia,  how  do  you  prove  that  this  is  a  verbal 
difpute  ?  Thofe  whom  this  nation  devoted^  you  fay, 
were  not  Jlaughtered  on  an  altar  with  religious  rites. 
True,  fir,  but  you  do  not  fay  all  ?  add  to  this  that 
they  never  were  offered  up  to  the  divinity,  and  con- 
fequently  that  thefe  were  not  real  facrifices-.  Other- 
wife  we  muff  fuppofe,  that  every  enemy,  every  re- 
bellious citizen  killed  in  a  city  taken  by  Itorm,  is  fa- 
crificed  to  God.  What  a  number  of  facrifices  then 
muff  have  been  offered  up  on  the  fmgle  night  of  St. 
Bartholemew ! 

But  you  fay,  notwlthjlandirg  they  were  really  offer- 
ed up^  that  is,  they  were  killed,  ftill  you  play  upon 
words. 

We  conclude  by  repeating,  fir,  that  in  the  29th 
verfe  of  27th  chap,  of  Leviticus,  no  facrifices  are 
meant,  but  dreadful  punifiiment,  notorious  ven- 
geance. Thole  who  were  devoted  by  publick  autho- 
rity were  put  to  death,  but  they  were  not  offered  up. 
In  languages  there  is  a  proper  name  for  every  thing  ; 
he  who  calls  that  an  offering  and  a  facrifice,  which 
others  call  penalty  of  death  and  military  execution,  is 
guilty  of  an  evident  abufe  of  words,  and  of  an  arbi- 
trary confufion  of  ideas. 

No  one  difputes  but  human  facrifices  were  coi=c- 
mon  among  the  Canaanites,  Egyptians,  Carthagini- 
ans, Romans,  &c.  Hiftory  informs  us  of  this ';  in- 
numerable teflimonies  of  weight  confirm  it.  There 
were  ceremonies  and  appointed  times  for  thefe  barba- 
rous acts ;  government  and  religion  equally  tolerated 
theni  ;  inhuman  priefis  fiaughtered  thefe  unhappy 
victims  3  their  blood  flowed  upon  the  altars,  and  ll^c 

T  t       ^ 


22'6  Letters©'? 

people  offered  them  up  unto  their  gods  as  the  fittell 
oblation  for  meriting  their  favour  and  averting  their 
vengeance.  Such  inllances  fhould  have  been  pointed 
out  in  the  hiftory  of  our  fathers  ;  then  you  would 
have  been  believed  ;  but  an  ill-interpreted  text  and  a 
childilh  equivocation  are  not  fuflicient  authorities  for 
charging  them  with  fo  deteftable  a  crime,  which  they 
went  to  punifli  in  the  people  of  Canaan,  a  worlhip 
which  their  law  clearly  forbids,  and  of  which  you 
fcarcely  find  one  example  in  all  their  annals,  and 
that  too  condemned  by  thofe  who  acknowledge  it, 
and  which  has  not  been  followed  by  any  one  of  the 
nation. 

Yes,  fir,  fo  far  from  thinking  that  our  law  pre- 
fcribes  or  approves  thofe  barbarous  ufages,  any  one 
who  is  the  lead  acquainted  with  our  hiftory  and  laws, 
will  confefs,  that  the  abolition  of  thefe  horrid  rites 
is  owing  to  our  religion,  and  to  the  others  which 
fprang  from  it.  And  you,  a  learned  writer  and  im- 
partial philofopher,  come  and  accufe  our  fathers  of 
this  practice  I  Truly  you  muft  be  very  fure  of  your 
readers,  fince  you  are  not  afraid  lealt  the  manileft 
falfehood  of  thefe  charges  fliould  give  them  a  bad 
opinioji  of  your  knowledge  or  your  ability, 

■  We  are,  &c. 


C    E    R    T    A   I    N      J    E    W    S.  327  • 

Letter  from  Joseph  Ben    Jonathan    to    David 
Winker,  concerning  the  follGiuingJhort  comnicnta- 

ry. 

Dear  David, 

1  Recieved  the  new  extrafts  of  our  friend  ^aror:s 
v/ork  which  YOU  fent   me.     I  have  tranflated  them, 
and  publiflied  them  under  the  form  of  a  commenta-  . 
ry  as  well  as  the  former.  ,    r  j  a 

This  form  feems  to  have  generally  plcafed  ;  and 
indeed  it  has  fome  advantages.  Befides  its  caufmg 
variety,  it  prefents  the  difficulties  to  the  reader  m  a 
more  dirtinft  manner,  and  expreifed  m  the  very 
words  of  the  author.  The  aniwers  follow,  and  it 
they  are  fatisfadcry,  they  are  more  eafily  apprehend- 
ed in  this  v/ay. 

Befides,  as  I  told  you  before,  commentaries  are 
coming  again  into  fafliion,  with  this  diflerence  how- 
ever, tha't  the  commentators  of  this  age  are  very 
far  from  being  enamoured  with  their  text.  It  Aa- 
ron does  not  love  his,  no  one  will  have  reafon  to  be 
furprized;  it  is  the  fafliion  of  the  times.  If  any 
onefliould  complain  of  this,  he  can  flielter  him.elt 
under  great  authorities,  you  underftand  me,  and 
what  is' flill  better,  under  good  rcafons. 

Adieu,  prefent  our  worthy  friend  my  bed  wilhes 
for  his  profperity,  and  believe  me  fmcerely  and  ten- 
derly, 

Your's  ^c. 


A  SHORT  Commentary 

EXTRACTED  FROM  A  GREATER. 

For  the  ufe  of  Mr.  Voltaire,  and  ofthofc  ivho  read 

his  works. 

t'IRST    EXTRACT. 

Of  Abraham,  whether  he  ever  exijled.     Who  he  was. 


ijIKE  all  great  men,  fir,  you  are  born  to  rule  the 
ap^e  you  live  in,  and  to  reform  all  its  prejudices 4 
The  title  of  commentator  was  become  (i)  the  loweft 
in  literature.  You  have  deigned  to  take  it  up  ;  it 
is  now  ennobled,  people  on  every  fide  flock  to  af' 
fume  it  after  you.  Happy  the  man  that  can  fuilain 
it  with  like  talents  and  fuccefs  ! 

By  your  comments  on  the  great  Corneille,  on  the 
excellent  author  of  the  Treatife  on  Crimes  and  Pu*-. 
nifnments,  hz.  you  have  done  honour  to  their 
works,  and  flamped  an  additional  value  on  them. 
Might  we  expetl  by  commenting  on  your's,  to  have 
the  happinefs  of  contributing  to  their  perfcclion  \ 
■"ihis  defire  at  lead,  we  may  fay,  animates  us,  and  af- 
ter the  defence  of  our  facred  writings,  it  is  our  prin- 
cipal objecl. 

And  therefore  we  (hall  not  fpend  time  in  extol!- 
ifig  the  beauties  that  fhine  forth  in  every  part  of  your 
writings.  Unhappy  they  indeed  who  want  the  help 
of  a  commentator  to  perceive  them  !  We  think  to 
contribute  more  efieftually  to  your  credit,  by  laying 
before  you  thofe   HttJe  inaccuracies  which  you  have 

(l)  7he  loivfjl  in  Utenttiire.  This  was  I'ope's  opinion.  "  From  an  au- 
*'  tlinr,"  lie  fays,  "  I  liecanie  a  traniJator,  frt'Uj  a  traiiHator,  a  conuiicntiior, 
••  i  Ihall  fjou  be  nothing  at  ail."     iLdit. 


COMMENTARY.  32^ 

fallen  into,  on  fubjecls  which  interefi:  us,  and  of 
which  you  fometimes  fpeak,  without  having  fufficient- 
ly  dived  into  them. 

We  hope,  fir,  that  you  will  look  favourably  ori 
this  our  zeal.  You  have  too  great  a  regard  for  truth 
to  be  offended  at  thofe  who  fhew  it  to  you  with  all 
that  deference  and  refpedl  which  are  due  to  you. 
Let  us  then  begin  by  the  hiftory  of  Abraham. 

§  1 .  Whether  the  hijlory  of  Abraham  is  certain,  and 

luhether  the  yews  defccnd  frojn  this  patriarch' 
The  Jews  boaft  of  their  defcent  from  Abraham  ; 
this  defcent  is  their  glory,  which  you  want  to  rob 
them  of.  With  a  view  to  this,  you  begin,  your  cri- 
tical enquiries  on  this  patriarch,  by  comparing  his 
hiflory  to  thofe  fables  which  are  told  of  fome  fa- 
mous characters  of  antiquity. 

Text.  "  Abraham  is  one  of  thofe  names  fa- 
mous in  Afia  Minor  and  Arabia,  like  Thaut  among 
the  Egyptians,  Zoroafler  among  the  Pcrfians,  &c. 
people  better  known  by  their  celebrity,  than  by 
wcll-attefted  hiftory,  (Philofoph.  Did.  art.  Abra- 
ham.)" 

Comment.  The  hiftory  of  Thaut,  Zoroafter,  &c. 
are  indeed  not  the  bed  attefted.  Of  thefe  famous 
names  we  fcarcely  know  any  thing  but  uncertain 
facts,  dubious  dates,  falfe  or  contradiftory  ac- 
counts. 

But  fmcerely,  do  you  really  believe,  fir,  that  Abra- 
ham is  not  better  known  to  us  ?  Muft  we  remind 
you  that  we  have  his  hiftory  connected  and  particu- 
lar, written  by  an  hiftorian  who  was  near  his  time, 
and  whofe  great-grand-father  lived  above  thirty 
years  with  this  patriarch's  grandfon  .'' 

In  this  hiftory,  the  exaft  and  impartial  hiftorian 
informs  us  of  the  origin  and  native  country  of  this 
great  man,  of  his  travels,  his  virtues  and  failings. 
He'  there  points  out  to  the  Hebrews,  who  were  re- 
turning into  the  country  Avhich  Abraham  had  inha- 


330  A      S     H     O     R     T 

bited)  the  places  where  the  patriarch,  his  fon  and 
grandfon  had  refided,  the  altars  they  had  built,  the 
wells  they  had  dug,  the  lands  which  they  had  ac- 
quired, the  kings  and  nations  with  whom  they  had 
dealings  or  alliances.  He  enters  into  the  fame  par- 
ticulars on  the  various  places  which  his  twelve  great- 
grandfons  had  rendered  famous  by  their  adventures 
or  their  crimes.  Is  this  the  way  in  which  men  gene- 
rally fpeak  of  a  fabulous  perfon  ? 

As  a  proof  of  their  defcent  from  this  patriarch, 
the  Jews  produce  their  genealogies,  which  are  look- 
ed upon  among  them  as  authentic  genealogies,  on 
which  were  founded  not  only  the  hope  and  common 
right  of  the  nation  to  the  poffefiion  of  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, but  alfo  the  refpeftive  rights  of  each  tribe,  and 
of  every  individual  in  each  tribe.  Tell  us,  fir,  what 
ancient  family  can  produce  titles  fo  inconteftible  of 
their  defcent. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  the  Jews  are  not  the  only 
people  who  claim  the  title  of  Abraham's  dcfcen- 
dants  ;  the  lihmaclitc- Arabians  boaft  of  it  too.  Thus 
two  nations,  according  to  you,/o  different^  that  ifivs. 
judge  of  ihcm  by  ibe  examples  of  our  modern  hiftcrics^  it 
would  be  bard  to  conceive  that  tbey  cculd  have  the  fime- 
origin  ;  two  nations  ever  jealous,  ever  enemies  of 
each  other,  fo  far  from  mutually  difputing  this  com- 
mon defcent,  join  in  attefling  it  to  the  whole  earth, 
imd  b.oth  of  them  bear  in  their  llefli  the  proof  and 
{tamp  of  it. 

The  tellimony  of  thefe  two  nations,  altho*  flrong 
in  itfelf,  is  yet  confirm.ed  by  that  of  two  other  na- 
tions, who  are  alfo  neighbours  and  enemies,  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites,  who  fav  thev  defcend 
from  the  nephew  of  Abraham  ;  and  it  is  alfo  con- 
firmed by  the  nations  of  Canaan,  who  by  the  name 
of  Hebrews,  which  they  gave  to  our  fathers,  declar- 
ed them  ftrangersto  theii*  country,  and  originr.lly 
'  coming  from  beycnd  tlic  I^uprates. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  331 

In  fliort,  the  God  whom  the  Jews  worfhlppcd,  the 
religion  which  they  profefl'ed,  the  land  which  they 
lived  on,  the  monuments  which  they  had  before 
their  eyes,  their  traditions,  their  fcriptures,  every 
thing  announced  Abraham.  If  after  this  number 
of  proofs,  the  exigence  of  the  patriarch,  and  the  de- 
fcent  of  the  Jews  are  not  well-attefred  fads,  there  is 
not  a  well-attefled  fad  in  all  ancient  hillory.  And 
yet  you  fay  confidently. 

Text.  '*  The  Jews  boaft  of  their  defcent  from 
"  Abraham,  as  the  Franks  do  from  Hedor,  and 
"  the  Britons  from  Tubal.**     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Probably  then  the  Franks  and  Britons 
have  their  genealogies  alfo  ;  their  religion,  govern- 
ment, the  GQmmon  and  refpedive  rights  of  the  ci- 
ties, and  of  private  perfons,  every  thing  amon.^ 
them^  tends  to  this  point  ;  every  thing  fuppofes  and 
demonfbates  this  defcent  .?  Their  neighbours,  their 
enemies  agree  in  it  ;  their  writers  attell  it,  and  m.o- 
numents  of  every  kind  confirm  this  tefiimony. 

Truly,  fir,  one  is  apt  to  lofe  all  patience,  who  con- 
fiders  that  multitude  of  conneded  fads  which  efla- 
blifii  the  defcent  of  the  Jev.'s,  and  then  hears  a  cele- 
brated writer  coolly  comparing  thsfe  incontcdible 
titles  to  the  vain  pretenfions  of  the  Franks  and  the 
Britons.  However  let  us  not  be  too  hafly,  but  lif- 
ten  without  pafTion  to  your  extraordinary  arguments 
on  this  head. 

§  2.  Traditions  cf  the  Arabians  concerning  Abra- 
ham ;  whether  they  dejlroy  the  iefiimony  of  the  jciuijh 
writers. 

In  order  to  caft  a  doubt  on  the  hi  (lory  of  Abra- 
ham, you  mix  fome  Arabian  fables  with  the  accounts 
ofourfacred  writings,  and  feigning  merely  to  attack 
thefe  fabulous  traditions,  you  fay, 

Text.  "  I  fpeak  here  only  of  prophane  hiftory,  for 
"  we  have  fuch  deference  for  the  Jewifh  hiftory  as  we 
"  ought  to  have.     We  are   only  fpeaking   to   the 


332  A      S     H     O     R     T 

*'  Arabians.'*      (Philofophical   Didlonary,    article 
Abraham. 

Comment.  You  are  onlyfpeaking  to  the  Arabians! 
We  underftand  vou,  fir,  what  need  of  dillimulation  ? 
You  enjoy  this  long  time  the  noble  privilege  of  fay- 
ing whatever  cotiies  ijito  your  head.  Take  off  the 
mafk,   and  attack  us  without  difs'uife. 

Text.  "  They  tell  us  that  he  (Abraham)  was  the 
**  fon  of  a  potter,  that  he  built  Mecca  and  died 
there."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Altho'  the  Arabians  fay  that  Abraham 
was  the  fon  of  a  potter,  yet  Genefis  does  not  fay  it. 
You  might  have  fpared  yourfelf  the  trouble  of 
afcriblng  this  to  it  (i)  as  you  do.  A  critick  of  your 
reputation  fhould  be  a  little  more  exa£l,   fir. 

The  Arabians  tell  us,  kc.  What  Arabians  ?  Is  it 
the  ancient  ?  You  have  not  their  books.  Is  it  the 
modern  Arabians  ?  But  the  modern,  who  are  pof- 
terior  to  Mofes  by  2000  years,  are  writers  without 
critical  knovv^ledge  or  tafte,  and  exceedingly  ignorant 
of  every  thing  that  preceded  the  Hegira.  Ypu  al- 
low this  yourfelf,  anii  you  leave  pure  fprings,  to 
go  and  draw  out  of  tnofe  muddy  waters  1  Do  you 
oppofe  fuch  authorities  to  that  of  a  judicious  wri- 
ter, well-Inftruiled,  and  who  lived  nearly  at  the 
fame  time  ? 

The  Arabians  fa^  that  Abraham  built  Mecca. 
Wt^ll,  fir,  what  matters  it  whether  they  fay  it  or 
not  ?  Or  what  are  thefe  Arabian  fables  to  us  ?  Does 
it  follow  that  becaufe  the  Arabians  make  Abraham, 
the  builder  of  Mecca,  the  exiftence  of  the  patriarch 
is  doubtful,  and  the  defcent  of  the  Jevs^s  uncertain  ? 
Muil  well-atteflcd  facbs  be  denied,  becaufe  iprnorant 
writers  have,  fo  many  ages  after,  mixed  fabulous 
florles  with  them. 

§  3.  Traditions  of  the  Perfians  concerning  Abra- 
ham ;  ivhether  the  hocks  in  ivhich  the  Pcrfuins  f^cak  of 
this  patriarch  are  prior  to  thofe  cj  the  jczvs, 

(')  ^'  yovdt.     Sec  Piulofuphical  Diilionary.     (Artiq«  Abraham. | 


.^v 


COMMENTARY.  333 

From  the  Arabian  traditions  you  go  to  thofe  of 
the  Perfians,  and  vou  would  ahiiod  make  us  believe 
that  Abraham  was  a  Perfian. 

Text.  "  Probably  the  Jewifh  nation  knew  the 
"  name  of  Abraham  onlv  thro'  the  Babylonians/* 
(Ibid.) 

Comment.  Probably.  Thus  you  oppofe  probabi- 
lities and  conje£lures  to  a  multitude  of  fads,  to  mo- 
numents, to  traditions,  to  hiftory,  to  the  records 
of  a  nation,  even  to  the  tellimony  of  its  enemies, 
&c.  !  And  what  fort  of  probabilities  too  ! 

They  kneiu  the  natne  of  Abraham  enly  thro'  the  Baby 
lonians.  What  is  your  meaninsj  here,  fir  ?  Is  it 
that  Abraham  was  a  Caldean  ?  Our  writings  atteft 
it  and  we  believe  it.  Or  that  our  fathers  were  not 
acquainted  with  that  name  until  after  they  removed 
to  Babylon  ?  This  affertion  requires  proofs,  produc-c 
yours. 

Text.  "  This  name  of  Bram,  x4.bram,  Ibrahim, 
"  was  famous  in  Perfia."     (Ibid.) 

CoMPdENT.  Yes,  but  when  did  it  begjin  to  be  fa- 
mous  thCTe  ?  Was  it  before  the.  Hebrews  were  ac- 
quainted with  it  ?  Or  was  it  after  they  were  fpread 
thro'  Perfia,  and  gave  this  name  celebrity  there  ? 
You  (hould  have  cleared  that  up.  Perhaps  you  are 
going  to  do  it. 

Text.  "  The  Perfians  pretended  that  this  Abra- 
"  ham,  or  Ibrahim,  was  from  the  country  of  Bac- 
"  tria,  and  that  he  lived  near  the  city  of  Balek.'* 
(Phiiofophy  of  Hiftory,   Article  Abraham.) 

Comment.  But  did  they  pretend  this  before  the 
times  in  which  the  Jews  place  the  birth  of  Abra- 
ham ? 

Text.  *'  In  him  they  refpsclcd  a  prophet  of  the 
"  rehgion  of  Zoroall'sr."     (Ibid.) 

Comment.  They  might  have  done  more,  for  ac- 
cording to  you. 

Text.  "•'  Many  learned  men  pretend  that  he  was 
"  the  fame  lawgiver  whom  the  Greeks  call  ZoroaC- 
*'  ter»Y     (Philofophical  Dictionary.) 

U  a 


334  A      SHORT 

Comment.  Many  learned  men.  Why  do  you  not 
Dame  them  ?  We  have  always  an  ill  opinion  of  thefe 
vague  quotations,  and,  you  know,  with  good  rea- 
fon.  Pr?y,  fir,  name  thefe  learned  men,  and 
then  wc  ihall  fee  what  refped  is  due  to  their  autho- 
rity. 

Fretend  that  he  was  the  fame  lazvgiver^  &c.  But 
do  thefe  learned  men  acknowledge  only  one  Zoro- 
^fter  ;  or  mere  than  one  ?  At  what  period  do  they 
place  theni  ?  This  date  is  of  confequence  ;  we  re- 
quire it  from  you,  and  you  do  not  fix  it. 

(»)  Many  learned  men,  fir,  ancient  and  modern, 
diliinguilh  two  Zoroafters  ;  one  who  lived  under 
Darius,  the  fon  of  Hyfiafpes,  and  was  confequently 
many  centuries  poilerior  to  the  father  of  the  faithful. 
The  other  is  of  uncertain  date,  but  fome  of  the  learn- 
ed place  him  five  or  fix  hundred  years  before  Darius, 
and  others  farther  back  flill. 

If  your  learned  men  fpeak  of  that  Zoroafter  who 
was  a  cotemporary  of  Darius,  the  period  is  too  re- 
cent to  prove  any  thing  againft  our  writings.  And 
if  it  be  the  ancient  Zoroailer  whom  they  confound 
Ti'ith  Abraham,  permit  us  to  afk  you  on  what  foun- 
dation they  do  it. 

Text.  "  The  ancient  religion  of  all  the  nations 
*'  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Oxus,  was  called  Kijh 
*'  Ibrahim,  MiUat  Ibrahim^     (Ibid.) 

Comment.  The  ancient  religion.  This  expreffion 
is  very  va;;ne,  fir,  it  would  have  been  proper  to  de- 
termine the  extent  of  it. 

Some  lea  ned  men,  fir,  and  among  others,  the 
learned  H  je,  Prideaux,  Pocock,  &c.  diftinguifh 
two  ancient  religions  of  the  Perfians ;  the  one  before, 
the  othcrr  under  Zoroafter  the  cotemporary  of  Dari- 
us, w^ho,  they  fay,  reformed  the  ancient  worfhip 
of  r^re,  and  taught  the  Perfians  to  acknowledge  but 
one  God,  the   creator  and  governor  of  the  v.  orld,- 


fl)    -Tjmj  learneJ  mem,   anamt,   \:ft,      5::    MemofTS  of   thc   J^CideCnj    cf 

Bcllcil-strcs,  vol.  a8.  V"'. 


COMMENTARY.  335 

and  to  pay  their  homage  to  him.  We  fhall  wiiling- 
Jy  gran:  that  this  reformation  was  called  Kilh  Ibra-- 
4fim^  Mill  at  Ibrahim  ;  but  thai  the  ancient  reli^on 
of  thefe  nations,  the  religion  that  was  profeiTed  be- 
fore Abraham  was  known  by  the  Hebrews,  was  call- 
ed Kijh  Ibrahim^  is  what  ought  to  be  proved,  and 
what,  we  give  you  notice,  you  will  find  it  hard  to 
prove.     But  vet  ycu  fav. 

Text.  '•  This  is  connrmed  by  all  the  er.^uiries 
*'  made  on  the  fpo:  by  the  learned  Hvde."     (^Ibid.) 

Have  you  r^ad  Hyde,  ur.  We  never  mike  bets  5 
but  the  chances  are  that  you  have  not. 

No,  fir,  you  have  not  read  Hyde ;  if  vou  had, 
ycu  would  have  taken  care  not  to  bring  him  in. 
You  are  too  fond  of  truth,  fir,  and  too  cunnin<j-. 

\ve  have  not  new  the  work  of  this  learned  man 
before  us ;  but  we  have  it  prefent  enough  in  our 
minds,  to  be  able  to  affure  you,  that  the  learned 
Hyde  is  of  a  quite  diiferent  opinion  from  you,  and 
that  he  is  fo  far  from  believing  that  the  Pcrfiaa  tra- 
•ditions  and  writings  invalidate  the  accounts  given  of 
Abraham  in  the  icriptures,  that  he  thinks  thofe  tra- 
ditions and  writings  confirm  them. 

Hyde  does  indeed  fay,  that  bj  bis  enquiries  TKade  en 
the  fpct,  it  appears  that  the  ancient  reHgion  of  the 
Perfians,  the  religion  of  Zoroafter,  was  called  Ki/b 
Jbrizbim,  Mi'.ht Ibrahim  ;  but,  fir,  the  learned  Hvde 
acknowledges  only  one  Zorcailer,  the  cotemporary 
of  the  fon  of  Hyftafpes,  who  was  pofterior  to  the 
removal  of  the  Jewifli  nation  to  Babylon  ;  he  azures 
us,  that  this  Zoroailer  had  been  inftruded  in  the 
jewifh  religion,  that  he  was  acquainted  with  their 
doctrines,  and  had  improved  himfelf  bv  their  vcjii-' 
in^s  ;  that  molt  of  the  Perfian  writers  a<rree  in  this, 
and  that  agreeably  to  this  perfuafion,  they  call  their 
religion  the  rdigizn  of  Abrakjm. 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Hyde  ;  and 
you,  fir,  who  quote  Hyde  and  refl  on  his  authority, 
come  and  tell  us,  that  the  Jews  borrowed  their  reli- 
gion from  the  Perlians,  their  h'-vs  alfo,   ani  the 


33^  '      A      S    H    O    R    T 

name  of  their  patriarch  ;  and  that  the  fmaU  ^Jezvijh 
nation^  ivhich  is  of  very  late  date,  had  no  do^rines 
nor  fixed  religion  ;  in  a  word,  did  not  knew  hoiu  t9 
ivrife  until  after  its  re?noval  info  Babylon  J  Between 
ourfelves  be  it  faid,  fir,  this  is  carrying  the  abufe  of 
a  great  name  very  far. 

Inftead  of  Hyde,  whom  probably  you  never  read, 
and  who  is  really  neither  an  eafy  nor  a  pleafing  wri- 
ter, open  the  learned  memoirs  of  I'Abbe  Foucher  on- 
the  religion  of  (i)  the  ancient  Perfians  ;  and  you  will 
find  that  he  fpeaks  nearly  in  the  fame  terms  with 
Hyde.  He  diftinguiflies,  it  is  true,  and  this  is  an 
happy  idea,  two  Zoroafters,  of  which  he  thinks  the 
cotemporary  of  Darius  was  the  fecond.  But  upon 
the  whole  he  believes  with  Pocock,  Reland,  Pri- 
deaux,  and  the  oriental  writers  mentioned  by  Hyde, 
that  this  Zoroafter  was  a  Jew,  and  had  been  a  difci- 
ple  of  Daniel,  or  of  fome  other  of  thofe  illuftrious 
Hebrews  who  were  raifed  to  the  higheft  employments 
by  the  kings  of  Perfia  ;  that  from  a  Jew  he  became 
chief  of  the  Magi,  that  he  reformed  the  Perfian  reli- 
gion according  to  that  of  his  anceftors  ;  that  with  this 
view  he  gave  a  fublimer  fenfe  to  the  worfliip  of  fire, 
announced  the  unity  of  God,  the  necelTity  of  wor- 
fliippinghim  only,  kc. 

He  adds,  that  this  cunning  impofler,  after  having 
carefully  colleded  what  remained  of  the  books  of  the 
ancient  Zoroafter,  and  what  was  knov/n  of  him. by 
tradition,  compiled  the  v;hole,  h\aving  added  much 
of  his  own,  and  publiflied  it  under  the  name  of  the 
ancient  Zoroafler ;  that  not  being  fatisfied  with  the 
credit  he  acquired  by  this  great  name,  he  wrote  fome 
l)ocks  under  the  title  of  Abraham,  in  order  to  (hew 
fhat  this  patriarch,  who  was  then  fo  highly  revered 
in  the  eaft,  had  been  one  of  the  great  partizans  ci 
the  religion  of  fire,  v/hen  underltood  according,  to 
hrs  explanation  ;  that  from  thence  this  religion  was 
called  Kifh  3rahini,  Mil/at  Ibrahim. 

(i)   Tht  uncknt  Ftrfans.     Scc  ihe  JTcmoirs ef  il.c  AcaJciriy  of  BclIcs  Lcl- 
trcf,  vol.  2/.  , 


C  O  M  M  :E  N  T  A  R  Y.  337 

And  this  learned  academician  gives  us  a  proof, 
with  Prideaux,  Reland,  Pocock,  Hyde,  &c.  that 
the  books  of  Zoroafter,  thofe  very  books  with  which 
you  have  often  upbraided  us  in  a  triumphant  man- 
Tier,  were  v/rittcn  by  a  Jew,  or  by  a  perfon  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  Jewifli  religion  ;  it  is  this,  we  fee 
a  ftriking  conformity  between  thofe  writings  and 
ours  ;  not  only  fome  laws  are  found  in  them  very  fi- 
milar  to  thofe  of  Mofes  on  the  diftinclion  of  animals, 
clean  and  unclean,  the  keeping  the  facred  fire  up, 
the  payment  of  tythes,  the  conlervation  of  the  prieit- 
hood  in  the  fame  family,  the  confccration  of  the 
chief  magi,  &c.  but  befides,  the  author  ufcs  in  many 
places  the  thoughts  and  words  of  our  fcriptures  ;  he 
partly  copies  the  pfalms  of  David,  he  relates  the  hif- 
tory  of  the  creation  nearly  in  the  fame  terms  with 
Genefis,  he  fpeaks  of  Adam,  Abraham,  Jofeph, 
Mofes,  Solomon,  almoft  in  the  fame  manner  that  our 
facred  writers  do. 

This  is  the  information,  fir,  which  TAbbe  Fou- 
cher  can  ^ive  you  ;  and  he  has  (i)  already  taught 
you  fomething,  if  you  have  taken  the  pains  to  read 
the  laft  volumes  of  the  memoirs  of  the  Academy  of 
Belles  Lettres. 

(1)  Already  ta'ight  ysn fomething-  The  follo-wir^  note  is  at  the  bottom  of 
OneofVAhbe  Fouoher's  Memoirs  "  Mr.  Voltiiire,  by  a  very  txtraoniina- 
ry  miftake,  transforms  the  title  of  a  book  into  a  man.  (This  work  is  ca!- 
ird,  SoJdtr.)  Zoroa/ler,  he  fays,  it  tLe  iiTkin^s  piffcrved  ly  S.tJJ<r.  f/igr,!  iiat 
Giti,  i^fc.  The  author  «f«jhc  Sadder  is  only  known  under  the  name  of  Mc  ich- 
fcah.  Befidcs,  this  Magi  did  not  prefcrve  the  writings  of  Zoroafter,  but  pre- 
tended to  give  an  abridf;emcnt  of  ihcni.  1  would  venture  to  lay  a  wager  that 
Mr. Voltaire  never  read  the  -ladder,  nor  Mr.   Hyde's  book." 

.Since  this  r  Abbe  FoHcher's  remark,  Pvlr.  Voltaire  has  'poke  with  more 
exaaneU  of  the  Sadder.  Thcrs  i»  confcquently  yrcat  reafon  to  believe  thaf 
J'.iUbc  Fouchcr  has  taught  him,  tUat  the  S.idJtr  was  ^ poem  and  not  a  tmm. 
But  the  iHnftrious  writer  will  not  allow  that  he  is  obliged  to  the  learned  aca- 
«Jeniif  ian  for  this  inforniati'-»n  ;  he  denits  his  having  nuiJc  this  n.i^bke.  It 
would  have  been  more  honouriiblc  to  own  it,  ^nd  thank  TAbbe  F^ucher  for 
rccTiifying  it.  Vo  taire  may  be  a  n\an  of  honour,  and  a  grc:it  man  too,  wnh- 
Biit  Hncierftanding  the  Perfian  language,  and  being  acqiiaiHtn]  witli  the  Sj/- 
der  ;   but  however  fome  thanks  arc  due  to  thofe  who  inilrud  lis.     ^.:it. 

It  is  ct-r-ainly  with  rcl!iri»ii  to  this  midake  cf  Mr.  Vo'tairf,  that  wc  rend 
the  followi.ig  words  in  a  work  ca'lcd,  Bifcnce  t/ihe  Bcoh  vf  fh;  Old  "'efaKevt. 
"  At  leaft  the  philofophtr  knows  now  that  the  S.iddfr  is  a  book.  I  l^tfliivt  hz 
^id  not  know  f(.  much  fomeytars  .igo."  Mr.  Voltaire's  Enrwer  to  l*Alb<! 
Voucher'?  note,  l.as  given  no  l-U:fa(ftiJ>ij  to  ai;jr  vac.  A  dicil  aufwcr  is  r» 
proof.     Edit. 


33« 


SHORT 


But  perhaps  you  prefer  to  the  opinions  of  H^de, 
Prideaux,  and  TAbbe  Foucher,  that  of  the  bold  and 
induftrious  academician  who  travelled  into  Judea, 
into  the  midft  of  the  Perfes,  and  who  after  having 
fludied  amongft  them  their  ancient  language,  has 
tranflated  into  your  language  the  fo  much  extolled 
Zend-x^vefla,  which  he  has  lately  publiihed.  But 
this  learned  man,  fir,  is  not  more  favourable  to  you, 
than  thofe  we  have  jufl  named. 

Indeed  Mr.  Anquetildoes  not  think  that  Zoroafter 
•was  a  Jew,  or  that  he  borrowed  his  doctrines  of  the 
Jews  ;  he  believes  him  a  Perfian  by  birth,  and  a  de- 
scendant of  the  ancient  kings  of  that  country;  but  he 
reprefents  him  to  us  as  going  from  Irak  to  Babylon 
to  ftudy  mathematicks,  aftronomy,  all  the  fciences, 
and  then  teaching  them  in  that  capital,  where  he  had 
Pythagoras  for  a  difciple.  He  reprefents  him  to  us, 
as  "  informing  himfelf  of  doctrines 'till  then  (i)  un- 
*'  known  to  him,  as  tranfported  at  the  fight  of  thofe 
"  traditions  which  inllrucl  him  in  the  origin  of  the 
*' human  race,  and'  in  the  caufe  of  all  thofe  evils 
*'  which  opprefs  it.'*  Now  at  what  time  was  Zoroaf- 
ter engaged  in  thefe  enquiries?  At  a  time,  fays  An- 
cjuetil,  when  the  Jezas  -ivcre  well  known  in  Perfia. 
And  let  us  add  on  our  fide,  at  a  time  when  the  pro- 
phecies of  Ifaiah,  which  were  (hewn  to  Cyrus,  the 
ordinances  of  that  prince  and  of  his  fucceflbrs  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Jews  and  of  their  religion,  the  reputa- 
tion, the  knowledge,  the  intereft  of  many  amongil 
them,  who  were  feen  in  the  hrft  employment?,  mud 
have  fpread  the  knowledge  of  their  doctrines  and 
their  laws,  the  hiftory  and  the  names  of  their  patri- 
archs through  all  the  provinces,  and  el]:>ccially  thro* 
the  capital  of  the  empire. 

(l)  Uidno'wntol'im.  Thefe  doiflrincs,  fiys  Mr-  Anquetil,  were  afcribed 
ti>  Hcomo.  Eut  will)  vvns  Iledmo  ?  An  ancient  lci:ifl::t(>r  of  the  Porfiaii-i  !  If 
it  prabal)!e  that  a  Pctfian,  of  the  birth  and  talsntsof  Zoro^ifttr,  was  ohlijrei 
at  the  age  of  thirty,  to  go  to  Clial.iea  to  learn  the  grciit  articles  of  the  ancient 
lepiflator  of  the  Perfiatis  ?  'Was  Heomo,  Abraham  ?  'I'hat  this  patriarch, 
Avhcii  he  was  quitting  Clialdea,  tniight  there  the  principles  of  tlic  txillence, 
unity  of  God,  !'.c.  is  what  all  rhc  Arabian  and  Perfian  writers  hold.  IJiic 
this  opinion  does  not  invalidate  the  Jewifh  monuments,  nor  what  they  rclat* 
of  Abraham  :  ijuitc  the  coiitr.iry.     A"!, 


COMMENTARY. 


339 


This  learned  academician  does  not  admit  either,  fo 
great  a  conformity  between  our  books  and  Zoroaf- 
ter's,  as  Pocock,  Prideaux,  I'Abbe  Foucher,  the 
authors  quoted  by  Hyde,  kc.  but  befides  thit,  Mr. 
Anquetil  allows  that  the  Zend-Avefta  does  not  con- 
tain all  the  works  of  thePerfian  law  giver,  and  that 
the  oriental  writers  quoted  by  Hyde,  may  have  feen 
fome  of  them  in  Perfia  that  were  not  known  in  In- 
dia ;  this  learned  man  does  not  deny  that  there  is 
fome  conformity  even  between  thofe  books  which  he 
has  tranllated  and  ours.  There  are  indeed  fome 
(i)  prayers,  (2)  laws  and  doftrines  very  fimilar  to 
ours.  There  is  a  Supreme  Being,  Eternal  Creator  of 
the  world,  and  the  origin  of  all  other  beings,  a  fingle 
man  and  woman,  firit  parents  of  the  human  race, 
their  temptation,  their  fall,  the  great  ferpent  their 
enemy  and  the  enemy  of  all  their  pofterity,  kc.  Or- 
mufd  fays  in  it,  "  /  am,  a  word  of  light,  O  Zoroaf^ 
"  ter,  which  1  command  you  to  announce  to  the 
*'  whole  world.'* 

If  this  clear  conformity  of  exprelTions,.  laws  and 
doctrines,  is  but  the  eiTe«^  of  chance,  or  as  Mr.  An- 
quetil thinks,  a  confequence  of  the  ancient  traditions 
of  mankind,  it  certainly  does  not  prove  that  the  Per- 
fian  legiflator  borrovi^ed  his  laws  and  doclrines  from 
the  Jews;  but  for  the  very  fame  reafon  it  cannot  prove 
that  the  Jews  borrowed  their's  from  the  Perfians. 
Thus,  fir,  all  the  little  arguments  which  you  have 
drawn,  fometimes  from  the  conformity  of  our  laws 
and  doctrines  with  thofe  of  the  Perfians,  and  from 
the  names  ot  Ibrahim,  Kijh  Ibrahim,  kc.  will  fall  to 
the  ground  under  the  reafoninsiS  of  Anquetil,  as  well 
as  Hyde,  Prideaux,  I'Abbe  Foucher,  kc. 

(i)  Prayers.  One  of  tiiem  begins  thus,  "  I  implore  tkee,  almigl<ty  Or- 
niufil,  let  my  cry  come  unto  thine  car,  let  my  voice  resch  thee."     Jut. 

(2)  Latvi,  Such  are,  thofe  amongft  (jthers  quoted  above  on  the  conferva- 
tion  en  fire,  &c.  and  thofe  refpedting  women  in  their  nienftruous  fcafong. 
They  arf  reckoned  by  thefe  laws  unclean,  every  thinj^  that  they  touch  is  un- 
clean, they  are  to  be  confined  in  a  feparate  apartment,  the  hufbmd  is  forbid- 
den under  pain  of  death  to  have  any  communication  with  his  wife.  In  a  word 
they  almort  ure  the  f^niewith  the  I.evitical  laws,  and  the  fligiit  difFtrcnce* 
vhich  appear,  fiicw  plainly  on  which  fiiJc  fiand  ruperflrticjj  and  the  ce- 
y.     A':, 


340  A       S     H     O     R     t 

But  further,  fir,  obferve  how  well  you  agree  with 
the  learned  man  of  whom  we  are  fpeaking.  You 
give  u^  the  Zend-Avefta  for  one  of  the  mojl  ancient 
books  known  upon  earth  ;  you  go  flill  further,  and 
call  it  the  moji  ancient  hook  in  another  place  ;  and 
Mr.  Anquctil,  whofe  intcreft  it  would  be  rather  to 
throw  back  than  to  bring  forward  the  period  of  Zo- 
roafter  and  of  his  works,  places  them  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  fixth  century  before  the  chriflian  era. 
What !  fir,  the  Zend-Avefta,  a  work  of  the  fixth 
century  before  the  chriftian  era,  is  the  moJi  ancient 
hook  in  the  inorld! 

Open  Mr.  Anquetil's  tranflation,  in  every  page 
you  fee  the  two  principles  ;  every  where  Ariman  con- 
tends with  Ormufd  ;   and  you,  fir,  would  perfuade 
lis,  that  the  t\.^;o  principles  ivere  really  admitted  in  Pcr- 
fia  only  in  the  time  of  Ma?ies. 

You  extol  the  books  of  Zoroafter  to  us,  and  his 
tranf^ator  has  boldnefs  and  fincerity  enough  to  inform 
us,  "  that  if  we  except  fome  ideas  of  the  divinity 
"  which  are  noble  enough,  and  a  fcheme  of  mora- 
*'  lity  pure  enough,  thefe  famous  books  are  nothing, 
*'  but  long  litaaies  j  that  they  clafh  with  our  man- 
*'  ner  of  thinking  and  writting  ;  that  the  fniall  num- 
"  ber  of  truths  which  they  contain,  is  as  it  were 
"  fwallowed  up  in  a  multitude  of  puerilities  ;  that 
*'  thefe  writings  are  flat  and  ridiculous,  and  full  of 
"  as  bad  reafoning  as  the  Alcoran,  and  as  lirefome 
"  (i)  and  difgufting  as  the  Sadder.'*  Such  are, 
according  to  Mr.  Anquetil's  opinion,  the  famous 
books  of  the  Perfian  legifiator.  If  you  ferioufly  com- 
pare thefe  rhapfodies  to  the  pathetick  difcourles  and 
fublime  poetry  of  Mcfes  and  of  our  prophets,  we 
pity  you.  A  philofophical  fever  muft  in  this  cafe, 
have  much  impaired  your  tafte. 


(i)  And  dij^up.lng  as  the  SaJJcr.  Thcfe  arc  the  words  of  the  Abbe  Renau- 
dot,  fpeakinij  of  tbc  Sadder,  >ic  ca'U  it  SorJiJiJJimus.  and  Mr.  Voltaire  ex- 
tols it  to  us  !  He  calls  it  the  ancient  comment  of  the  nioft  ancient  hock  oa 
earth,  and  this  comnierit  is  perhaps  ;j3  or  300  years  old.  A  rcf^cifl^bX; 
piece  ot  uati<iuitytruly  !  Edit, 


COM  M  E  N  1'  A  R  Y.  341 

BiU  befides,  Mr.  Anquetil  holds  an  unfavourable 
opinion  of  the  characler  of  Zoroal'ler  himfelf.  lie 
Inok  upon  him  as  a  well  informed  philofopher,  but 
he  cannot  help  acknowledging  at  the  fame  time, 
that  this  great  man  was  an  enthufiaH:,  an  impoflor, 
a  perfecLitor,  who,  in  order  to  eftabliih  his  religion, 
(i)  caufed  the  blood  of  nations  to  flo\Y. 

To  return,  fir  ;   let  the  learned  form  what  fyllem^ 
they  pleafe  on  Zoroaiter,  and  the  facred  books  of  the 
Perfians,  it  is  evident  that  before  any  advantage  can 
be  taken  againft   us   from  the  conformity  of  thofe 
books  with  ours,  and  from  the  names  o(  Ki/Ij  Ibra- 
him, Millai  Ibrahim  given  to  the  ancient  religion  of 
thofe   nations,  it  mud   be  proved,  and  foHdly  too, 
that  thofe  Perfian  books  were  prior  to  ours,  and  that 
the  religion  which  they  taught  was  called  Kipj  Ibra- 
him, kc.  before  Abraham  was  known  of  the  He- 
brews.    Upon  this,  fir,  we  wait   for   your   propfs. 
They  may    form   a  curious  article  in  your  .^cJUqt^s 
cncyclopeJiques.     It  will  be   worth  while  to  fee   you 
contending  againfl  Freret,  Renaudot,  Hyde,  Pccock, 
Prideaux,   Foucher,  Anquetil,  he.  and  fliev/ing  to 
ail  thefe  learned  men,   that  with  all  their  application, 
their  ikill   in   ancient  and  modern  languages,    and 
their  enquiries  on  the  fpot,  they  are  lefs  acquainted 
with  thefe  matters  than  you  are. 

§   4.     IVbeiber  the  Indiatis  ijjcre  the  ftrjl  who  knciv 

A  raham. 
It  is  a  proverb  in  your  country,  fir,  that 'tis  tlie 
privilege  of  travellers  to  tell  lies.  You  are  not  a 
;^rear  traveller,  fir,  but  you  lead  us  very  far,  from 
]\ile[line  into  Arabia,  from  Arabia  into  Perfia,  from 
Pcrfia  into  India.  I  hope  you  do  not  intend  to  play 
the  traveller  on  us  1  However  by  travellin-j-  with 
vou,  one  may  learn  very  curious  and  fenfible  thinesi 
We    are   taught  for  inllance,    that  Abraham   was 

(l)  Caufed  foe  lilou4  of  nations  toforu.  Tliis  Is  an  inftance  of  the  toleration 
pra.flifed  by  Zoroa'ler  and  his  Perfians.  He  dcrlared  war  ajaiiill  tiif  kin'» 
ef  Touran,  to  force  him  to  embrace  his  reli^iop.  This  is  a  new  proof  thcS 
tbirt  iVire  no  religious  WJr',  txi^cpt  among/I  Jezvt  unJ tLiiiliiiJii  i 


34?  A      S     H     O     R     T 

iirft  known  in  India.  For,  you  fay,  if  many  learned 
men  have  affertcd  that  Abraham  ivas  the  Zerduji  cr 
Zoroajler  of  the  Per/tans. 

Text.  "  Others  aflert  that  he  is  the  Brama  of 
*'  the  Indians,  which  is  not  demonltrated."  (Phi- 
lofoph.  Dictionary.) 

Comment.  We  do  not  alk  you  here  the  names 
of  thofe  learned  men  :  we  are  acquainted  with  one 
of  them  ;  yourfelf,  fir.  Ahho'  this  opinion  is  not 
demonftrated,  yet  you  gravely  maintain  it  in  your 
Philofophy  of  Hiftory.  But  tho'  you  have  not  de- 
monllration  of  this,  yet  probably  you  have  fome 
proofs  ;   let  us  fee  them. 

Text.  '*  It  feerns  that  this  name,  Bram,  Brama, 
*'  Abraham,  is  one  of  the  mofi:  common  names 
*'  amon^:j  the  ancient  nations  of  Afia.*'  (Fhilofophy 
of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  It  matters  not  whether  the  name  is 
common;  this  is  not  the  queition  ;  but  thcqueftion 
is  whether  they  are  the  fame  names.  Now  one  of 
thefe  is  an  Hebrew",  the  other  an  Indian  name  ;  the 
one  fi  unifies  high  father  of  a  multitude,  the  other  (i) 
poweiful  fpirit.  Therefore,  it  is  probable,  that 
thefe  two  names  are  very  different  both  in  derivation 
and  fenfe. 

Text.  "  The  Indians  called  their  God  Brama, 
**  and  their  Pried .  Bramins,  or  Brachmans."  (Phi- 
iofophical  Didionary.) 

Comment.  WtW  !  does  It  follow  that  becaufe 
the  words  Brama  and  Brachman  have  fome  fimili- 
tude  to  that  of  Abraham,  that  Abraham  and  Brama 
are   the  fame  thing  ?  Does   this   reafoning   become 

(r)  Po-rerfiil fphit.  Mr.  Hclwel',  who  lived  a  Fong  time  in  In^ia, 
and  there  traiiflatcd  a  great  part  of  the  Shallnh,  informs  u$  that  tlie  name 
Bramah  is  derived  from  A'/ aw,  Ipirit,  and  J^.Jah,  powerful.  **  'I  his  name, 
he  lays,  "  the  Indians  give  t<i  the  author  of  the  fshaj  ab,  hy  which  they  c'e- 
"  note  his  fpirituality,  and  the  divinity  of  his  minion  and  dodlrine.  t.'encc 
■*'  hjs  fucccffors  are  railed  Biamins,  ita  order  to  ih<.\v  that  they  have  inherit- 
"  ed  his  divine  fpirit."  It  is  well  known  that  the  name  y\hrahani  comes 
f.nm  Al>,  father.  Ram,  elevated,  and  Hamman^  multitude.  There  is  tlu-re- 
f'-re  no  other  fimilitudc  between  Biamiili  and  Abraham  than  that  of  IoukcJ. 
£ii!. 


COMMENTARY.  343 

you,  fir,  who  have  fo  often  ridiculed  ihQ  H'lets 
and  BDcharts,  for  building  fometimes  on  refein- 
^lances  of  names? 

Text.  "  This  people  (the  Indians)  whom  we 
*'  account  one  of  the  eariieil  nations,  make  of  their 
"  Brama  a  fon  of  God,  who  initructed  the  Bramas 
"  in  the  manner  of  wofhippin^  him  ;  the  veneration 
"  paid  to  this  name  palTed  quickly  from  one  people 
*'  to  another.     The    /Arabians,  Caldeans,  PeifKins, 

took  it  up,    and  the  Jews  looked  upon  him  as  one 

of  their  patriarchs. 

*'  The  Arabians,  who  traded  with  the  Indians, 
*'  were  probably  the  firfl:  who  had  fome  confufed 
"  ideas  of  Brama,  who  they  called  Abrama,  and 
"  from  whom  they  afterwards  boailed  of  defcend- 
"  injr."     (Philofophy  of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  This,  fir,  is  a  noble  explanation  of 
the  Indian  derivation  of  the  name  of  Abraham,  and 
oftiie  rout  betook  from  India  toPaleftine  ! 

Yet  you  muft  indulge  us  in  making  fome  reflexions 
here. 

The  Indians  ivhom  we  account  one  of  the  earlicft 
nations^  &c.  When  you  account  the  Indians  one 
of  the  earlied  nations,  fir,  you  may  be  right,  but 
when  you  make  them,  in  another  place,  the  mojl 
ancient  of  all  nations,   you  are  probably  wrong. 

Make  of  their  Brama  a  fon  of  God,  he.  Some- 
times then  it  i'eems  they  make  him  their  God,  fome- 
times,  a  fon  of  God,  who  infiru^ed  them  in  the  way  of 
worfdipping  him.  We  allow  it ;  but  how  long  is  it 
fince  the  Indians  make  of  their  Brama  a  fon  of  God  ? 
Are  you  very  fure  that  this  belief  of  the  Ind/ans  was 
prior  to  the  writings  of  the  Hebrews?  Pleafe  to  pro- 
dace  your  proofs,   fir. 

The  veneration  paid  to  this  name  paffed  quickly  fr 9m 
one  people  to  another.  No  one  doubts  that  the  name  of 
Abraham  paflfed  quickly  thro'  the  Eaft  ;  but  one 
might  reafoiiably  doubt  that  this  veneration  began  \\\ 
India. 


«? 


44  A      S    H     0     R     T 


The  Arabians,  who  traded  luitb  the  Indians  .^  ivere 
probably  the firji^  &c.  Might  ue  afk  you,  fir,  why 
fhould  the  Arabians  have  traded  in  India  before  the 
Ferfians,  who  were  fo  very  near  to  India  ?  You  can 
certainly  anfwer  this  queftion. 
^tLtfi-^Were  the  firji  liho  had  fome  confufcd  ideas.  It 
would  have  been  more  to  the  advantage  of  your  fyf- 
tcm  if  they  had  diftindt  ones.  Confuled  ideas  pre- 
fented  in  a  confufed  manner,  are  not  very  fit  for 
clearing  up  a  queftion. 

Some  conjufed   ideas   of  Brama^  ivhom  they   called 
^Abra?na,     Nothing  more  probable  truly  !  The  deri- 
vation of  thefe  two  words,  as  we  have  Ihewn,  leads 
'diiedly  to  this. 

And  from  whom  they  afterzcards  boajled  of  dcfcend- 
ingj.  The  Arabians  have  boalled  and  dill  boall  of 
their  defcent  from  -Abraham,  the  father  of  the  Jew- 
ifli  nation.  But  in  what  Arabian  author  have  you 
read,  fir,  that  the  Arabians  ever  boalied  of  their 
defcent  from  the  Brama  of  the  Indians  ? 

The  Caldeans,  the  Ferfians,  appropriated  it  to  them- 
felves.     Still   alfertions   and   no   proofs.     But    you- 

iay. 

Text.  "  The  name  of  the  Indian  prieRs,  and 
*'  many  facred  inflitutions  of  the  Indians,  have  an^ 
"  immediate  relation  to  the  name  of  Brama  ;  but, 
*'  on  the  other  hand,  among  the  weftern  Afiaticks, 
"  no  fociety  of  men  was  ever  called  Abramich.  ', 
*'  there  is  no  rite  or  ceremony  of  that  n^me." 

But,  fir,  do  you  not  know   that  an  whole   nation 
bore  the  name  of  the  grandfon  of  Abraham  ?  Do  you 
not  know  that  this  people  has  ufed  and    ftill   ufes  an- 
extraordinary  and  painful  rite,  and   that   it   ufes  it 
merely  becaufe  it  received  it  from  Abraham  ? 

The  name  of  the  Indian  pt  lefts  has  an  immediate 
relation  to  the  name  of  Abraham.  You  mult  mean  a 
relation  of  found.  Therefore  Abraham  was  known 
bv  the  Indians  before  he  was  known  by  the  Ilebrev.s  ! 
A  line  way  of  reafoning  ! 

What,   fir,  are  thefe  the  proofs  '.vhich  you  cppofc 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  345 

to  the  eiclftence  of  Abraham,  and  to  the  defcent  of 
the  Jews,  confirmed  by  fo  many  titles !  This  furely 
is  mocking  your  readers  ! 

We  take  it  for  granted  that  you  never  did  believe 
that  the  knowledge  of  Abraham  came  to  us  from 
the  Indians,  thro'  the  Arabians  and  Perfians.  V/hen 
this  ridiculous  notion  came  firlt  into  your  head,  you. 
probably  at  firft  lau^^hed  at  it,  and  probably  you  do 
fo  flill.  But  you  know  your  readers  ;  you  know 
that  there  are  many  of  them  who  will  take  up  with 
any  thing.  Perhaps  you  adopt  that  mod  philofo- 
phical  principle,  that  it  is  very  fair  to  mock  fools. 
But  pray,  fir,  let  us  hereafter  have  more  humanity 
and  lefs  philofophy. 

SECOND     EXTRACT, 

Abraham* s  travels.  Some  f mall  geographical  m'lf- 
tnkes,  accompanied  ivitb  feveral  ethers.  1  ravels  into 
Palejiine. 

Altho'  you  obferve,  Very  ingeniouily,  that  Abra- 
ham ivas  fond  of  travelling,  yet  you  do  not  feem  to 
like  his  travels  ;  you  think  them  firange  ;  let  us  fee 
whether  they  are  really  fo  \  and  let  Uo  b^sgin  by  his 
journey  into  Sichem. 

You  think  this  one  incomprehenfible.  You  can- 
not conceive  how  or  why  Abraham  could  refolve  on 
fo  long  and  dreadful  a  journey.  If  we  believe  you, 
he  muit  have  found  unconquerable  difficulties  in  it, 
and  he  could  have  no  reafonable  motive  for  under- 
•  taking  it. 

§  I .  Of  the  diffcullies  which  Abraham  had  to  fur- 
vwiint.  Whether  they  'were  fuch  as  the  critic  rc.pre- 
fcnts  them. 

Abraham  had  undoubtedly  difficulties  to  furmounl 
in  removing  from  liar  an  to  Sichem,  and  this  proves 
tlie  livelinefs  of  his  faith,  and  the  willingnefs  of  hi> 
obedience.  But  were  thefe  difficulties  inl'urraouiita- 
ble  ? 


34^  A    S  H  O  R  T 

Firft,  in  order  to  judge  of  the  length  of  his  jour- 
ney, we  think  it  would  be  neceiTary  before  all  things 
to  fettle  from  whence  he  fet  out.  Now  with  regard 
to  this  your  ideas  are  not  clear,  determinate,  orjult. 
You  fav. 

Text.  '«  Genefis  fays,  that  Abraham  went  out  of 
*'  Haran  after  the  death  of  i  hare  his  father."  (Phi- 
lofophy  of  HipLory,  article  Abraham.) 

'^  After  the  death  of  his  father,  Abraham  left 
"  Caldea'.'*     (Ibidem.) 

"  It  feems  extraordinary  that  he  fliould  have  quit- 
*'  ted  the  fruitful  country  of  Mefopotamia  to  go  into 
"  the  barren  land  of  Sichem,  at  the  diHance  of  three 
*'  hundred  miles.'*     (Ibidem.) 

"  Sichem  is  more  than  an  hundred  leagues  from 
«  Caldea."     (Philofoph.  Did.) 

Comment.  Gcnefis  fays  that  Abraham,  having 
quitted  Caldea,  went  to  Haran  with  Thare  his  fa- 
ther, and  that  he  went  after  from  Haran  to  Sichem  ; 
and  this  is  eafy  to  conceive. 

You  fay,  fir,  as"  we  have  jfhewn,  that  after  the 
death  of  Thare^  Abraham  ivent  oitt  of  Haran ^  and- 
that  he  left  Caldea.  That  he  left  Caldea^  and  that  he 
zvent  from  Mtfopotaniia.  Now  all  this  cannot  be  eafi- 
ly  conceived. 

If  Abraham  went  from  Haran  he  did  not  go  from 
Caldea,  and  if  he  went  from  Caldea  we  ought  not  to 
fay  merely  that  he  went  from  Mefopotamia.  Do  you 
place  Haran,  fir,  in  Caldea?  Or  do  you  confound 
Caldea  with  Mefopotamia  ?  This  is  ju ft  as  if  you  con- 
founded that  part  of  France  called  the  ifland  of 
France  with  the  kingdom  of  France,  and  as  if  you 
faid,  to  go  from  France,  that  is,  from  the  ifland  of 
France.  When  diflances  are  to  be  afcertained, 
there  ought  to  be  more  exadncfs  and  precifion  in 
terms. 

Bur  you  will  fay,  what  matter  whether  Abraham 
went  from  Caldea  or  Mefopotamia,  he  had  dill  a  long 
way  to  travel.     How  far  then  "i 

TcKt.  "  Three  hundred  miles,  cr  one  hundred 
''  leagues." 


COMMENTARY.  347 

Comment.  An  hundred  leagues!  Frightful  dif- 
tance,  fliocking  jcurne}  !  How  could  he  go  an  hun- 
dred leagues  ! 

But,  fir,  although  an  hundred  leagues  frighten 
you,  for  a  wandering  family,  accurionied  to  live  un- 
der tents,  and  to  change  their  habitations  frequently, 
yet  an  hundred  leagues  might  not  make  fo  dreadful 
ajournev  as  vou  think. 

Befides,  is  it  very  certain  that  there  was  the  dif- 
tance  of  one  hundred  league^  from  Haran  to  Sicherri? 
If  you  are  iure  of  this,  you  certainly  know  where  Ha- 
ran lay.     Yet  you  tell  us, 

Text.  "  Out  of  feventy-five  fyRems  formed  upon 
*'  the  hiftory  of  Abraham,  there  is  not  one  that  tells 
"  us  exatlly  what  this  town  or  hamlet  of  Haran  is, 
"  or  where  it  lies.'*     ( ^ellions  fur  TEncy  elope  die.) 

Comment.  It  is  true  that  commentators  and  seo- 
graphers  are  much  divided  with  regard  to  the  fitua- 
tion  of  the  town  or  hamlet  of  Haran,  v.'hich  is  alfo 
called  Charan. 

Some  think  it  is  the  city  of  Carres  in  Pvlefopota- 
mia,  famous  for  the  defeat  of  CrafTus  ;  others,  ano- 
ther city  called  Carres,  near  Tadmor  or  Palmyra  ; 
and  fome,  a  third  city  of  Carres,  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  JJamafcus. 

As  for  you,  fir,  you  have  not  the  leafl  doubt  or 
uncertainty  with  refpecl:  to  this  point  of  geography,  * 
You  know  more  of  the  matter  than  all  the  commen- 
tators and  geographers  together  ;  or  rather,  with  no 
more  knowledge  than  they  have,  you  begin  conii- 
dently  by  affirming  that  there  were  more  than  thrcs 
hundred  miles ^  or  one  hundred  leagues,  from  Haran  to 
Sichcm.  Might  we  not  juflly  think  a  man  too  bold, 
who  pretends  to  determine  the  diflancc  between  two 
places,  without  knowing  the  fituation  of  one  of 
them  ?  But  here  follows  another  difficulty  attending 
tjie  patriarch. 

Text.  '-  He  had  wllderneires  to  go  thro'  in  his 
*'  way  to  Sichem."     (Philofoph.  Didionary.) 


34S  A      S     H     O     R     T 

Comment.  That  depends,  fir,  on  the  place  you 
make  him  go  from,  and  the  road  you  make  hira 
take. 

If  he  was  to  go  at  this  day  flraight  from  Caldea 
to  Sichem,  he  would  have  wilds  to  pafs  thro'  and 
perhaps  there  were  fuch  too  in  the  tim.e  of  Abra- 
ham. 

But  in  going  from  Haran,  even  the  Haran  be- 
yond the  Euphrates,  it  was  not  unavoidable  to  pafs 
the  wilds.  Abraham  might  have  gone  to  Aparnia, 
Emefus,  Damafcus  ;  from  Daraafcus  he  might  have 
paffed  over  to  Sidon,  from  Sidon  to  Carmel,  and 
from  Carmel  to  Sichem.  Or  he  might  have  gone  a 
flili  fliorter  way,  from  Damafcus  to  the  fources  of 
Jordan,  from  thence  to  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  and 
from  this  lake,  thro'  rich  and  fruitful  plains  to 
Sichem.     Their  are  no  wilds  here,  fir. 

Now,  it  is  not  only  poffible  that  Abraham  went 
this  way  ;  but  it  is  highly  probable,  for  Genefis  fays, 
that  he  went,  not  from  Caldea,  but  from  Haran, 
and  it  was  a  tradition  even  among  Pagans,  that  (i) 
he  reic:ned,  or  rather  refided,  fome  time  at  Da- 
mafcus.  Therefore  thefe  wilds  which  fcare  your ' 
imagination,     are  not  to  be  found  in  this  journey. 

But  here  is  a  new  difficulty  attending   the  patri-  , 

arch, 

"  Text.  The  Caldean  tongue  muO:  have  been  very 
*'  diiierent  from  that- of  Sichem  ;  it  was  not  a  place 
of  trade."    (Ibidem.) 

Com m en  t .  The  Caldean  tongue  rnvjl  have  been  very  dif- 
ferent from^  kc.  Who  told  you  this,  and  what  proof's 
have  you  of  it  ?  None  ;  and  we  ihall  fiiev^  hereaf- 
ter that  thefe  two  languages  were  not  near  fo  diiier- 
ent as  you  think  them. 

(i)   Hf  ragr.en' »r  rcfi.!e:l.  Sec.     Genefis  confirms  this  tra^lition  ;   it  impli« 
pretty  c. early  tliat  Abraham  lived  fome  time   at  Dania(ciis,  whtre   it  fays  in 
one   phce  that  li,!ic2cr  was.  of  Damafcus,  and  in   another  place  that   he  was 
born  in  Abraham  s  houfo.     This   obfcrvation  13  taken  from  the  learned  Bi-  . 
(hop  of  Cl'jglitr.     i"<.'/;. 


COMMENTARY. 


349 


//  was  not  a  place  of  trade,  kc.  No  ;  but  Abraham 
was  not  looking  for  a  place  of  trade,  he  v/as  look- 
ing for  palhirage  ;  and  mount  Carmel,  the  plain  of 
Efdraelon,  Sec.  and  all  the  places  about  Sichem 
fupplied  him  with  excellent  paftures.  Abraham  was 
a  fhephcrd,  and  why  do  you  talk  to  us  of  places  of 
trade  ? 

§    2.     Whether   Abraham   had  any  reafonable  1119- 
ti've  for  undertaking  this  journey. 

But  in  fhort,  you  fay,  what  motives  could  engage 
him  to  undertake  fuch  a  journey  ? 

Text.  "  He  quitted  Mefopotamia  ;  he  went 
*'  from  one  country  which  is  called  idolatrous,  to 
"  another  idolatrous  country.  Why  did  he  go  to 
"  it  ?  Why  did  he  leave  the  rich  bsanks  of  the  Eu- 
*'  phrates  to  go  into  fo  diftant,  fo  barren,  andfo  fto- 
"  ny  a  country  as  that  of  Sichem  ?" 

CoM.MENT.  He  loent  into  a  country  ivhich  is  calU 
ed  idolatrous ,  he.  It  was  juftly  called  fo,  for  thev 
worPiiipped  in  it  the  Sun,  Moon,  and  all  the  holt  of 
Heaven,  witnefs  the  idols  uhlch  Thare  made,  accor- 
ding to  the  traditions  of  the  Arabians,  ^^traditions 
which  you    quote  and   refpeil:  much. 

Why  did  he  go  to  it  ?  Even  if  we  did  not  know  why 
he  went,  would  it  thence  follow  that  he  did  not  go, 
or  that    he  had    no  reafonable   motive  for  froino;  ? 

Why  ?  Becaufe  the  country  he  was  quitting  was 
idolatrous ;  becaufe  God  had  dill  fonic  faithful 
fcrvants  in  that  country  whither  he  was  going  j  in 
a  word,  as  you  fay  yourfelf,  becaufe  it  plcafcd  God 
that  he  fnould go.  Are  thefe  abfurd  motives  and  rea- 
fons  ivhich  the  human  mind  can  hardly  conceive  ? 

Why  did  he  leave  the  rich  bcinks  of  the  Euphrates 
to  go  to  fo  difiant  a  country  ?  "Would  not  one  think 
that  Abraham  was  fctting  out  for  the  end  of  the 
world,   or  for  another  hemifphcre  ? 

So  barren  and  fo  flony  a  countr^j  as  that  of  Siche?ii, 
Sic.  This  was  the  country  in  which  the  Ifraehtes 
fixed  their  refidence  for  fomc  time  after  their  enter- 
ing; Pakiline  and  taking  Jericho.     Hcie  the  kincrg 

Y  y 


3S^ 


SHORT 


of  Ifrael  fixed  the  feat  of  empire,  and  here  the  Sa- 
maritans built  a  temple  in  oppofition  to  that  of  Jeru- 
falem.  Would  this  country  have  been  preferred  to 
fo  many  others,  if  it  had  been  as  barren  in  thofe  an- 
cient times  as  you  make  it  ? 

Nor  was  it  fo  in  the  time  of  the  judicious  and  ex- 
a6t  Belon.  "  At  Naplofa,"  fays  he,  "  which  in 
*'  my  opinion  was  anciently  called  Sichar  or  Sichem, 
*'  the  hills  are  well  cultivated  with  fruit-trees,  the 
olive-tree  grows  large,  the  inhabitants  cultivate 
the  white  mulberry-tree  for  the  food  of  worms, 
whofe  filk  they  ufe,  figs  alfo  grow  on  fmall  trees.'* 
The  learned  Ludolpb  alfo  attefts,  that  Mount  Ge- 
rizim  (this,  fir,  was  the  country  of  Sichem)  was  in 
his  time  very  fruitful',  and  Maundrell,  fliJl  of  later 
date,  affures  us  that  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Sichem, 
may  be  feen  a  rich  and  fine  country,  lovely  hills 
and  fruitful  vallies.  This  country  then  might  well 
have  pleafed  Abraham.  It  might  pleafe  at  this  day, 
if  the  Arabians    did  not  infeft  it. 

§  3.  Abraham's  age  when  he  undertook  this  jour-^ 
ney. 

But  v;hat  furprises  you  moft  is,  that  Abra- 
ham fiiould  undertake  this  journey  at  fo  advanced  an 
age. 

Text.  "  Abraham  was  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  years  old  when  he  left  his  country.'*  (^/f- 
fiions  fur  l*Encyclopedie.)  This  is  a  very  extra- 
ordinary journey  undertaken  at  the  age  of  near 
an  hundred  and  forty  years."  (  Philofophical  Dic- 
tionary.) 

*'  Abraham  was  jufl:  two  hundred  and  thirty-five 
*'  years  old  when  he  let  out  on  his  travels."  ( De- 
fenfe  de  mon  Oncle.) 

Comment.  When  he  left  his  country.  Probabfy 
you  mean  when  he  went  from  Haran,  which  was  not 
Jjis  country. 

But,  fir,  when  Abraham  leit  Haran,  he  was  not 

near    a7i  hundred  and  thirty  five  nor  t'ujo  hundred  and 

fcvcnty-five,    (for  it  appears,  as  a 'proof  of  the  ex3<^- 


cc 

cc 


COMMENTARY.  351 

ticfs  of.  your  calculations,  that  the  numbers  always 
vary  )  he  was  but  fcucnty-five  years  old. 

Now  this  age  of  feventy-five,  was  the  bloom  of 
life,  at  a  time  when  they  began  to  have  children  at 
feventy,  and  when  men  lived  to  the  age  of  an  hun- 
dred and  fifty  or  an  hundred  and  eighty. 

Abraham  lived  one  hundred  and  feventy-five 
years,  fo  that  at  feventy-five  he  had  not  gone  thro* 
half  his  courfe  of  years.  He  was  then  what  a  man 
of  thirty-five  or  forty  v/ould  be  now.  Do  you  think, 
fir,  that  a  man  of  thirty-five  or  forty  is  too  old  to  un- 
dertake a  journey  of  an  hundred  leagues.     But  you 

Text.  "  Could  Abraham  be  at  the  fame  time 
"  feventy-five  years  old  only,  and  an  hundred  and 
"  thirty-five  years  old  ?"  ( ^leflions  fur  l^Encyclo- 
pcdie.) 

Comment.  No,  fir,  and  for  this  reafon  Genefis 
does  not  fay  in  any  place,  that  he  v/as  an  hundred 
and  thlrty-ji've  years  old,  when  he  left  Haran. 

It  fays  on  the  contrary,  in  plain  terms,  that  he  was 
then  hwt  feventy-five  years  old.  It  makes  this  exadt 
obfervation,  that  long  after  his  return  into  ?.gyP^ 
when  the  Lord  promifed  him  that  he  fhould  have  a 
fon  within  that  year,  he  Was  ninety-nine  years  old. 
It  fays  he  was  an  hundred  years  old  when  Ilaac  was 
born. 

lliefe  texts  are  clear  ;  the  age  of  Abraham  is  af- 
certained  in  them  precifely,  and  in  a  manner  that 
does   not  at  all  agree   with  the  hundred  and  thirty- 
Jive  years,   wdiich  you  give    him  when  he  left  Ka- 
ran. 

Text,      "  i»ut  this   fame  Genefis  tell  us,    that 

Tharc,    having  begotton  Abraham  at  the  age  of 

feventy,  lived  till  he  was  two  hundred  arid  five 
*'  years  old,  and  that  Abraham  did  not  go  from  ila- 
*'  ran  'till  after  his  father's  death.  Abraham  mu ft 
"  therefore  have  been  at  that  time  juft  an  hundred 
"  and  tiiirtv-five  years  eld."  (Phibfoph.  Dici-  and 
Philof.  of  Hill.) 


35^  A      S     H     O     R    T 

Comment.  This  argument  fuppofe<  that 
you  underiland  the  paffage  of  Genefis,  on  which 
you  reft  your  evidence,  well.  Now  this  may  be  con- 
tcfted. 

Genefis  fays,  Thare  lived  three-fcore  and  ten  years^ 
and  he  begat  Abraham^  Nachor^  and  Haran.  Hence 
you  infer  that  Abraham  was  the  eldefl:  brother,  and 
that  he  was  born  exactly  in  the  feventieth  year  of 
Thare's  life  ;  this  inference  is  bv  no  means  fatisfac- 
tory  ;  for  Genefis  fays  the  fame  of  Noah,  tl*^he 
begot  three  fons,  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japh(r6J|^id  yet 
Shem  was  not  the  oldeil^   but  Japhet.         j^ 

We  might  then  anfwer  you,  tha't  it  is  falfe,  or 
at  lead  doubtful,  that  by  thefe  words,  Tfmre  lived 
ihree-fcore  and  ten  years,  and  he  bcgof  Abraham,  &c. 
Genefis  means  that  he  was  the  eldefl  brother, 
or  fixed    the  precife  year  of  his  birth. 

(i)  We  might  anfwer  you  befides,  that  the  paf- 
fage  of  the  vulgar  Hebrew  text,  in  which  Thare  is 
faid  to  have  lived  two  hundred  and  five  years,  is 
contradided  by  the  Samaritan  text,  which  gives 
Thare  only  one  hundred  and  forty-five  years  of  life. 
And  this  reading  agrees  exactly  with  the  other  num- 
bers, and  takes  away  all  appearance  of  contradidir 
on. 

Therefore  moil  of  your  learned  men  prefer  this 
reading  to  that  of  the  vulgar  Hebrew  text,  which 
they  think  has  been  altered  by  the  copiers  in  this 
place.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Bochart,  KnatchbuU, 
Clayton,    Houbigant. 

What  do  you  do  then,  fir,  in  order  to  fhew  that 
Abraham  was  very  old  when  he  undertook  thefe  jour- 
nies  ?  You  judge  of  his  time  by  your  own,  and  you 
oppofe  a  doubtful  or  falfe  argument,  with  a  text 
probably  falfified,  to  four  or  five  clear  and   exprefs 


{l)lVe  mi(^ht  anfwi^r  you  ■  lefu/es ,  This  anfwer  would  ^c  fatisfaiSory,  but 
oiir  Jewilh  authors  would  probalily  be  unwilling  to  allor.'  that  tlic  Saiuari- 
tan  text  is  more  cxaiit  than  the  Hebrew.    Cirljl. 


COMMENTARY.  353 

paffages.  You  would  undoubtedly  fhew  more  im- 
partiality if  a  profane  author  was  in  queflion  ;  you 
would  explain  the  obfcure  paflage  by  thofe  which 
are  clear  and  precife  ;  this  is  the  pradice  of  all  cri- 
ticks.  Is  it  unreafonable  to  require  the  fame  equity 
from  you  ? 

Upon  the  whole  then,  fir,  the  difficulties  which 
Abraham  might  have  met  with  in  his  journey,  were 
not  infurmountable ;  he  had  reafonable  and  flrong 
motives  for  undertaking  it  ;  he  was  not  two  old  for 
fuch  undertakings.  Therefore  it  is  not  a  thin:^ 
beyQnd  conception  that  he  undertook  and  executed 
it. 


THIRD    EXTRACT. 

Continuation  of  Abraham'' s  travels.     His  journey   mt$ 

The  journey  of  which  we  have  been  fpeaking,  was 
followed  by  another,  v/hich  you  think  as  ftrange, 
becaufe  thro'  heedleflhefs  you  do  not  form  jufter 
ideas  to  yourfelf  of  it,  than  you  did  of  the  ,proced- 
ing  one. 

§    I.     Abraham* s  route. 
Text.      "  He  is  fcarcely   arrived   in  the  little 
"  mountainous  country  of  Sichem,    when   famine 
"  drives  him  out  of  it  ;  he   goes    to  Egypt  to  look 
*'  for  food.     (Philofoph.  Didionary.) 

Comment.  He  is  fcarcely  arrived.  He  had 
been  there  perhaps  a  year  or  more,  but  no  mat- 
ter. 

He  goes  to  Egypt  to  look  for  food.  Very  furprizing 
indeed  1  Would  you  have  had  him  ftav  in  a  country 
vifited  by  famine,  whilfl:  he  could  remove  into  a 
neighbouring  one  which  had  corn  ?  But, 

Text.  "  There  are  two  hundred  leagues  from 
Sichem  to  Memphis  ;  is  it  natural  that  a  man 
fhould  go  look  for  bread  at  fuch  a  diftancc,  ia  a 


cc 


35^ 


SHORT 


*'  country  of  vvhich  he  does  not  underftand  the  lan^ 
*'  guage  ?  Thefe  are  flrange  travels.'*  (Philofoph. 
Didionary.) 

Comment.  'There  are  Huo  hundred  leagues  from 
Sichem  to  Memphis.  Not  quite,  fir  ;  they  reckon 
fcarcely  more  than  an  hundred  and  thirty  (i)  or  an 
hundred  and  forty.  You  have  only  made  the  dif- 
tance  one  third  more,  a  fmall  miftake  ! 

This  abfence  of  mind  which  you  had  when  you 
wrote  your  Philofophical  Dictionary,  continued  on 
you  vi'hen  you  wrote  your  Philofophy  of  Hiilory. 
Indeed,  fir,  your  abfent  fits,  ahho'  hght,  lad  a  long 
time. 

You  make  Abraham  fet  out  from  Sichem,  but  he 
had  already  left  Sichem  ;  he  had  lived  fome  time  at 
Bethel,  and  had  advanced  towards  the  fouthern  fron- 
tier of  Palefiine,  when  he  fet  out  for  Egypt.  Do 
you  know,  fir,  that  the  diftance  from  thence  to  E- 
gypt,  did  not  exceed  twenty  or  thirty  leagues  ?  Was 
it  not  natural  to  go  and  feek  for  bread  fo  near  home, 
where  they  were  fare  of  getting  it  ? 

It   was  fo  natural   to  have  recourfe   to  Egypt  in- 
this  circumflance,   that  Ifaac  drew  near   to  it  again, 
and  that  Jacob  fent  his  children  thither  en  alike  oc- 
cafion. 

This  is  not  all ;  Genefis  fays  that  Abraham  went 
to  Egypt ^  which  is  eafy  to  conceive.  But  you  fend 
him  to  Memphis,  fir,  which  is  indeed  very  extra- 
ordinary. 

But  Vvho  told  you  that  Abraham  was  at  Memphis!* 
Who  told  you  that  Memphis  was  then  the  capital 
of  Egypt  ?  Or  even  that  it  exifledin  the  time  of  A- 
braham  ?  There  are  fomc  reafons  for  doubting  it. 
Tanis  qnly  is  known  by  our  ancient  writers.     Ho- 

•  (l)  Or  140.  We  form  a  judgment  of  this  by  the  relation  of  Be'nn,  TvJirt 
was  but  ten  dayf  performing  tl.is  journey,  altho'  he  fay!<  in  his  time  there  was 
an  extraorcjinary  had  road  between  Cairo  and  Jtruikleni.  Now  it  is  wtll 
known  that  fron-.  Cairo  to  Memphis,  there  are  but  three  fn  all  leatjues.  it 
hashcen  obferved  alfo  in  the  book  called  Dtftnce  of  iLe  Bmis  of  the  Old  Trvj* 
i!';in/,  that  father  Eugene,  who  fravelhdinto  that  country,  reckons  but  ICO 
kagucs  fr»m  C»iro  to  Gaza,  un  J  ilut  there  arc  net  40  frcm  Gaza  to  Sichem. 
Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  355 

mer,  who  fpeaks  of  Thebes,  fays  nothing  of  Mem- 
phis, and  Ifaiiih,  of  all  the  Hebrew  authors,  is  the 
firfl  that  mentions  it.  If  Mcinphls  had  been  the  ca- 
pital of  Egrypt,  in  Abraham's  time,  would  our  v/ri- 
ters  have  been  filent  on  that  head  until  (i)Ifaiah  ? 

Jn  a  country  of  zvbich  he  does  not  under/land  the  la?:- 
giiage.  But  how  can  you  tell,  fir,  but  Abraham  did 
underftand  this  language  ?  Perhaps  this  language 
did  not  differ  fo  much  then  from  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, as  it  has  done  fmce.  And  befides  was  it  im- 
poflible  to  find  an  interpreter  ? 

The  mind  of  man  may  then  without  fo  much  ixou^ 
hie  co?nprebend  the  reafons  of  fuch  a  journey. 

§  2.  Abraham^ s  conduh  in  Egypt.  A  fcandahus 
hnputation  of  the  illujlrious  writer. 

Chriitians  have  been  for  a  long  time  divided  with 
regard  to  Abraham's  conduO:  in  Egypt.  Some  have 
faid  (2)  with  a  view  of  juRifying  him,  that  he  did 
not  violate  truth  in  calling  himfelf  the  brother  of  Sa- 
rah, as  file  really  was  his  fifter  ;  that  by  this  con- 
duct he  referved  to  himfelf  the  right  of  watching  her 
condu<51: ;  that  he  gained  time  by  this,  and  had  rea- 
fon  to  flatter  himfelf,  that  during  this  interval,  pro- 
vidence, which  had  conduced  him  into  thofe  parts, 
would  make  foniething  intervene  to  deliver  him  out 
of  his  critical  fituation. 


(i)  Ifalub.  Thefe  reafons  may  be  found  at  full  length  in  Bnchart's  an- 
fwer  x.a  the  poet  St.  /Am.ipd.  Bocliart  maintains  in  it,  that  \Iemp!iis  did  not 
cxirt  in  the  time  of  Mofcs,  or  at  leaft  was  not  the  caj)ital  of  Egyjit.     Aut. 

(2)  With  a  -vieiv  ofjujVfyina  him.  Out  of  the  great  nurwber  of  thofe  who 
juflifyor  excufe  Abraham,  wu  fiiaii  mention  but  one,  the  learned  and  mode- 
rate V^'aterlaml.  lie  maintains,  in  his  work  in  which  he  defends  the  fci  ip- 
ture  againll  Tiiidal,  that  Abraham  did  nothing  on  this  orcaficn  unworthy 
of  a  wife  and  (iood  man;  that  he  could  reafonably  rely  on  Saiah's  fidelity, 
if  the  king  of  Egypt  had  any  fparlcs  of  virtue  ;  that  if  Abraham  had  a(51td 
otherwife,an<l  acknowledged  Sarah  for  his  wife,  he  wou'd  have  foohlhly  ex—, 
pofcd  his  life,  without  making  her  honour  mors  fecure  ;  that  ahho"  we  arc 
ftjrbid  to  lie,  yet  we  are  not  obliged  to  tell  all  truths,  cfpcciaily  to  a  ravilher 
and  a  murdtrer,  who  would  make  this  difcwvery  fubfervient  to  his  bafe  ends, 
the  deftruflion  of  the  innocent,  &c.  Waterland  here  refts  on  the  authority 
of  Alexander,  to  wliom  he  refers  hi?  riadtffs.  Sc:  Niitalis  Alexander,  vui.  I, 
pajjc  :ci,  &\.z.     Ant, 


356  A      S    H    O    R    T      ' 

(i)  Others  more  fevere,  have  loudly  condemned 
him  for  having  equivocated  with  Pharaoh,  and  rafli- 
ly  expofed  Sarah's  chaftity. 

(2)  It  was  refervedfor  you,  fir,  to  impute  to  this 
holy  man  the  lov/efl:  and  bafefl  intention.  Your  ac- 
cufation  amounts  to  this,  that  he  attempted  to  make 
a  bafe  traffick  of  his  wife's  beauty. 

Text.  "  As  flie  was  a  fine  woman  he  refolved  to 
"  profit  by  her  beauty."      (Fhilofoph.  Did.) 

Comment.  So  weighty  a  charge  againft  a  man  who 
has  been  revered  for  fo  many  ages,  and  by  fo  many 
nations  for  his  piety  and  virtue,  would  require  the 
ftrongeft  proofs.  Produce  your's,  fir.  They  arp 
nothing  but  bafe  fuggeflions,  and  a  fcandalous  alte- 
ration of  the  text  of  fcripture.  If  we  are  to  believe 
you,   fir,  Abraham  faid  to  Sarah, 

Text.  "  Feign  that  you  are  my  fifter,  that  they 
*'  may  dome  good  on  your  account."  (Philofophi- 
cal  Didionary.) 

But  in  Genefis,' Abraham  fpeaks  thus  to  Sarah, 
"  You  are  handfome  ;  when  the  EgVDtians  (hall  fee 

you,  they  will  fay,  this  is  the  wife  of  that  man, 
*''  and  they  will  kill  me.    Say  then,  I  pray  you,  that 

you  are  my  fifttr,  that  I  may  be  well  treated,  and 
*'  that  my  life  may  be  prelerved  through  your. 
'•  means." 

You  fee  then,  it  is  not  with  a  view  of  profiting  by 
liis  wife's  beauty,  but  to  efcape  from  death,  which  he 
thinks  inevitable,  that  he  requefls  Sarah,  not  tofeipi^ 
but  to  fay  that  file  was  his   filler,  (3)  as  fhe  really 

(l)  O'.len  ri-^ri ftvcre.  Of  th's  niimlier  arc  Origcti,  Jcrcm,  Calvin,  and 
niany  othcis,  both  ancient  and  niodtrn.     A<it. 

(a)  //  Tfvi.t  reiervtd for  -^mi.  No  it  was  not  ;  for  every  thin^  that  the  il- 
luftrious  writer  fays,  is  only  Baylc  and  1  indal's  olijedions  warmed  up  a- 
jHin.     Edit. 

(3)  y^!  fi'  really  ivn'.  She  was  the  daughter  of  his  father,  and  not  of  hi» 
nil  tlitr,  as  Abraliani  (jy^. 

Ildwevtr,  although  we  allow  with  the  crowd  of  Rnlibins,  that  Sarah  was 
the  daughter  of  J'harc  hy  a  different  wife  from  iMr:ilia;r/s  mother,  yet  we 
acknowlcilge  that  many  Jearr.fd  Jews  and  Chriflians,  J3r(hi,  Pole,  Welli, 
Patrick,  Hyde,  Watcihnd,' &.c.  aJTert  that  fhe  was  the  fifter  of  Lotj  ths 
tlan^^'liter  of  liaran,  and  confcqucntly  the  niece  and  not  the  fitter  of  Ahra- 
liani.  Thcfc  learned  men  ground  their  >. pinion  on  this,  that  '^aiah  is  called 
iu  Gencfis  Tharc's  daughter  iu-law,  and  that  in  the  flyic  uf  fciipture,  the 


cc 


cc 


COMMENTARY.  n-y 

was.  Cenfure  him  then  for  his  timorournefs,  if  you 
will ;  blame  him  for  his  weaknefs,  condemn  him  for 
his  equivocation,  but  add  not  an  imputation  trulv 
calumnious,  to  a  fevere  judgment. 

§  3.     Sarah  carried  off. 

The  event  foon  fliewed  that  Abraham's  fufpicions 
and  fears,  were  but  too  well-grounded.  The  Iv^yp- 
tians,  having  feen  Sarah,  give  notice  of  it  to  Phara- 
oh, and  (he  is  carried  off.     Upon  which  you  fay, 

Text.  "  As  foon  as  he  arrives  in  Egypt,  the  king 
"  falls  in  love  with  his  wife  ;  who  was  feventy-live 
"  years  old."     (Philofophy  of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  Seventy-five  years  are  given  her  in  the 
Philofophical  Dictionary,  and  but  fixty-five  in  the 
Quedions  fur  TEncyclopedie.  Can  you  not  be  con- 
fident with  yourfelf  in  fpeaking  upon  any  point  1 

But,  you  will  fay,  can  a  woman  of  feventy-five 
ftill  have  charms  ?  You  judge,  fir,  of  thofe  ancient 
time-,  by  your  own.  You  forgot  that  Sarah  lived  to 
the  age  of  an  hundred  and  twenty-feven  years,  and 
that  Ihe  was  therefore  at  that  time,  what  a  woman  of 
thirty- fix  is  amongit  your  people.  Do  you  think  that 
at  this  age  a  fine  woman,  who  had  bore  no  children, 
could  not  have  preferved  her  beauty  fufficiently  to 
infpire  us  with  love  ?  You  are  too  well  acquainted 
with  your  own  hiftory,  and  with  the  age  you  live  in, 
not  to  know  that  both  thefe  could  fupply  you  ( i )  with 
feveral  fuch  inftances. 

Z  z 

terms  brother  and  filler  often  fij^nify  no  more  than  clof-i  rclafinnfhip.  Kence 
it  happens  that  I-ot,  Abraham's  nephew,  is  called  his  brother. 

Therefore  Don  Calmet  is  not  the  lirft,  nor  the  only  one  who  has  held  that 
Sarah  was  Abraham's  niece.  This  fuppofition  is  by  no  means  fo  ridiculous 
3S  Mr-  Voltaire  thinks,  and  his  chirgc  ajrainlt  Don  Calmet  is  very  illiberal. 
Don  Calmet,  fay*  he,  whofe  judgnicnt  and  Capacity  are  iiiiivinlally  acknow- 
ledged, thinks  that  perhaps  (he  was  Abraham's  niece.  Wi-  fee  norcafon  lor 
treating  this  learned  religious  in  fo  roii;:h  a  uiinner.  His  coMiment,  q-icted 
with  encomiums  hy  ItranjjfTS,  fcems  to  have  fupplicd  the  illiilhious  writor 
with  many  obiervations  triat  adorn  his  writin<-«,  which  he  would  )»robably 
never  have  known  but  for  them.  Is  it  out  ot  gratitude,  that  he  calls  Don 
Cal.Tiet,  in  another  place,  .j^eor  ry.-.^i -zyr/Virr,  iv.thcut  jitd^mfDi  .'  such  expicf- 
lions  were  not  made  to  he  applied  to  Don  Cahnet  by  Mr.   Vid:ai.-e.     A;it. 

(IJ  lVithfi'vfralf,4cbin;'anccs.  Mr.  Voltaire  mull  not  for^'-.t  at  lead  what 
he  has  related  of  Nn'oii,  his  bencfaiilrcf<,  and  of  his  )»<>dfiithcr  Chateauiieuf. 
What  he  fays  of  tlieai  is  an  extra^rvlinary  m-t'.io  1  of  itninnrtalizing  thof-: 
p^rfons  whofs  ni .aiory  is  dear  to  hi;n.     Sec  hi.  D.J'eife  Ji  man  On. It.     ET.t. 


358  A     S    H    O    R    T 

§  4.  Curious  reafon'ings  of  the  learned  critick  on  the 
' prefcnts  made  to  Abraham. 

If  it  is  diflrciTing  to  your  readers,  fir,  to  fee 
a  great  man  calumniated  by  a  celebrated  writer,  you 
foon  make  them  amends  for  this,  by  (1)  your  extra- 
ordinary reafonings  on  the  prefents  which  Abraham 
received  from  Pharoah.  Ihe  confequences,  fir, 
which  you  draw  from  this  fad:  are  very  curious. 
You  fay  firft  that, 

Text.  "  Thefe  prefents  were  great  prefents, 
"  confidcrable  prefents."  (Philof.  of  Hift.  andPhi- 
lof  Did.) 

Comment.  What  were  they  then  ?  Great  fums 
of  money,  fuperb  vafes  of  gold  and  filver,  rich  fluffs, 
jewels  of  great  value  ?   No. 

Text.  "  They  confided  of  a  great  quantity  of 
"  fheep,  oxen,  he  and  flie-all'es,  horfes,  camels,  male 
"  and  female  fervants.  (Fhilof  of  Hiftory,  Philo- 
foph.  Didionary,  Queftions  fur  TEncyclopedie.) 

CommeinT.  When  we  conlider  the  manner  !n 
which  you  u flier  in  the^t  great  prefents^  we  are  fome- 
what  furprized  to  find  them  fuddenly  reduced  to  ox- 
en, flieep,  he  and  fhe  affes,  &c. 

Plowevcr,  fir,  you  agree  perfedly  with  the  fcrip- 
tures  here,  (which  feldom  happens)  except  however 
in  the  article  of  horfes  which  it  does  not  mention, 
and  in  the  exprcflion  a  great  quantity,  which  cannot 
be  found  either  in  the  text,  or  the  moft  exad  ver- 
fions  ;  but  which  may  be  added  in  order  to  pay  a 
compliment  to  Pharaoh,  and  to  render  the  phrafc 
mere  harmonious. 

Such,  fir,  according  to  you,  were  the  great  pre- 
fents.    Let  us  now  fee   Vv'hat  they  prove,  according 
to  you. 

Text.  "  Thefe  prefents,  which  were  confidera- 
"  hie,  prove  that  the  Pharaohs  were  then  pretty 
"  powerful  kings  ;  the  country  of  Egypt  was  alrea- 

(l)  Yavr  exIrMvdincyy  reafonings.  We  muft  do  this  iufticc  to  the  illulri- 
ous  writer;  tlie  reafonings  which  he  is  going:  to  produce  on  th«fc  prefents, 
bcUuiij  neither  to  Bayle  nor  Tindal,  &c,  they  are  entirely  his  own.    Aut. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y. 


359 


««  dy  well  peopled.  But  in  order  to  make  it  habit- 
•'  able,  to  eftablifli  cities  in  it,  immenfe  labour  was 
•*  requifite  ;  it  was  necelTary  to  make  the  waters  of 
*'  the  Nile  flow  thro*  a  multitude  of  canals,  and  to 
"  raife  thefe  cities  at  lead  twenty  feet  above  thefe 
*'  canals.  Probably  even  many  great  Pyramids  had 
"  been  built. *'     (Q^iefl:ions  Encyclopediques.) 

*'  They  (the  prelents)  prove  that  even  then  E- 
"  gypt  was  a  very  pov/erful  and  well  civilized,  and 
confequently  a  very  ancient  kingdom.  (Philofo- 
phical  Diftionary.) 
"  They  prove  that  even  then  this  country  was  a. 
'*  powerful  ftate  ;  monarchy  was  eftabHflied  in  it, 
"  the  arts  were  cultivated.  The  river  had  been 
'*  fubdued  ;  they  had  dug  canals  every  where  to  re- 
*'  ceive  its  inundations,  without  which  the  country 
*'  would  not  have  been  habitable.  Now,  I  would 
*'  afk  any  man  of  fenfe,  whether  it  did  not  require 
"  age«;  to  found  fuch  an  empire,  in  a  country  which 
*'  was  for  a  long  time  inacceflrble,  and  laid  wafte  by 
*'  thofe  very  waters  which  afterwards  fertilized  it. 
We  mufl:  therefore  forg-ive  Manetho,  Herodotus, 
Diodorus,  Eratofthenes,  for  that  prodigious  anti- 
quity which  they  afcribe  to  the  kingdom  of  E- 
gypt ;  and  this  antiquity  mud  have  been  very 
*'  modern  in  comparifon  of  the  Caldeans,  and  the 
*'  Syrians,  &c.     (Philofophy  of  Hiftory.)" 

Comment.  Thus,  fir,  from  the  prefents  which 
Abraham  receives  from  Pharaoh,  you  conclude,  that 
the  world  is  prodigioUily  ancient,  and  that  the  cal- 
culations of  Manetho,  Eratofthenes,  S:c.  are  much 
more  reafonable  than  thofe  of  the  Jewifii  writers. 
Pharaoh  gives  Abraham  oxen  and Jheep,  therefore  he 
was  a  very  po-verful  monarch.  He  gives  him  he  and 
(he  affes^  therefore  the  pyramids  ivere  built  ;  therefore 
the  Hebrew  writers  are  very  ignorant,  when  tliey  af- 
fert  that  the  world  is  but  fix  or  feven  thoul'and  years 
old.  Thefe  ideas  are  new  and  thefe  arguments  ad- 
mirable ! 


<i 

ti 


a 
a 
c: 

cc 


-^60  A      SHORT 

They  have  flill  this  further  advantage,  "when  they 
are  applied  to  fome  other  perfon,  to  the  king  of  Ge- 
rar  for  example,  who  aifo  made  a  prefent  to  Abra- 
ham of  iJA'^w  rtttfi/Zjc"^^,  they  become  fo  droll  that  one 
cannot  help  laughing. 

Now  if  we  were  to  fay;  "  as  foon  as  Abraham 
arrived  at  Gerar,  in  the  (hocking  wildernefs  of 
Cades,  his  wife  was  taken  from  him  by  the  king 
of  that  country,  therefore  that  country  was  very 
ivell  governed.  The  king  gives  him  fheep  and  ox- 
en, therefore  the  king  was  a  'very  powerful  mo- 
narcb.  He  gives  him  he  and  flie  dfles,  therefore 
in  this  fbocking  -wildernefs  trade  flourifhed,  and 
"  manufaciures  did  abound  ;  therefore  they  had 
"  built  cities,  and  conquered  the  barrennefs  of  the 
"  foil,  &c.  therefore  the  "world  is  very  ancient" 
^Would  not  you,  fir,  be  the  firft  to  laugh  at  thefe  our 
arguments  ?  Nay,  they  would  make  you  burft:  with 
laughter  !  Forgive  us  then  if  we  laugh  a  little  at 
your's. 

It  is  furprifinr,  fir,  that  you  did  not  fee  that  thefe 
prefents  of  the  king  of  Egypt  prove  exattly  the  con- 
trary of  what  you  want  to  prove.  If  the  king  of  E- 
-gypt  gives  a(fes  and  fbeep  to  Abraham,  this  is  the 
prefent  of  the  chief  (i)  of  an  infant-colony,  to  ano- 
ther chief  fuch  as  himfelf.  If  he  gives  him  flaves, 
Romulus  would  have  done  fo  too,  when  he  was  king 
of  a  villa  gi  and  had  plundered  fome  neighbouring  vil- 
lages. 

Monarchy  ivas  eflablifljed  in  Egypt,  the  arts  -were 
therefore  cullivated,  Iffc.  If  you  know  no  countries 
where  monarchy  is,  or  has  been  eflabhlhed  without 
the  cultivation  of  the  arts  prefently  or  formerly, 
you  have  read  but  little,  or  have  forgot  much.  Do 
you  think  then,  that  the  arts  were  cultivated  in  the 
ap-es  of  Romulus  and  Evander  ?  Do  you  think  they 


d)  Cfan  infant  colony.  •  W^a  do  n<>t  deem  the  kings  «)f  Kgypt  at  that  timr, 
to  have  been  merely  the  chiefs  ol  an  infant-colony  ;  we  have  an  higher  idea 
of  them  ;  but  we  have  not  formed  it  from  Mr.  Voltaire's  rcafonings  on  the 
prefents  made  CO  Abraharo.     Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  361 

are  cultivated  in  all  the  clans  of  African  negroes,  and 
"in  all  the  favage  colonies  of  America  which  have 
kings  ?  You  have  often  faid  that  they  never  were 
cultivated  amongft  the  Jews  where  monarchy  was  ef- 
tablijhed. 

They  had  dug  canals  every  where^  iviihout  ivhich 
the  country  would  not  have  been  habitable.  What, 
Egypt  would  not  have  been  habitable  if  they  had  not 
dug  canals  every  where  !  We  mult  fuppofe,  fir,  that 
the  Egyptians  had  fome  habitations  before  they  dug 
thefe  canals  every  where  ! 

We  conceive  that  without  thcfe  canals  that  part  of 
the  country  which  the  Nile  overflowed  could  not 
have  been  inhabited  during  ihe  inundation.  But 
we  conceive  alfo,  that  the  inhabitants  might  live  on 
the  borders,  and  that  as  foon  as  the  waters  retired, 
they  might  till  and  fow  the  lands  which  the  waters 
left  dry,  after  manuring  them. 

We  conceive  again  that  the  inhabitants  may  have 
ftolen  ground  by  degrees  from  the  inundation  ;  that 
they  may  have  dug  canals  and  built  cities  twenty  feet 
above  thefe  canals.  But  we  conceive  too  that  it  was 
not  abfolutely  necefl'ary,  that  thefe  canals  fhould  have 
been  dug  every  where,  that  the  river  fliould  have 
been  fubdued,  that  cities  and  pyramids  fhould  have 
been  built  to  enable  a  king  of  Egypt  to  give  Abraham 
oxen  andjheep. 

Now  I  would  afk  any  fnan  of  fenfe,  l^c.  And  wc, 
fir,  would  afk  any  man  of  judgment,  nay  yourfelf, 
fir,  whether  this  is  a  rational  conclufion,  becaufe  the 
king  of  Egypt  gave  he  and  fhe  alTes  to  Abraham, 
therefore  the  pyramids  were  built  and  the  world  is 
exceedingly  ancient.  Could  any  man  lay  fuch  ar- 
guments before  his  readers,  if  he  did  not  fuppofe 
them  to  be  fo  many  (i )  heads  of  cabbage  ? 

Thus,  fir,  a  diftance  ill-determined,  a  falfe  accu- 
fation,  mifplaced  raillery,  and  ridiculous  argumentj-^, 
in  a  few  words,  make  up  the  whole  of  your  difficult 

(i)  Hijds  af  cab'iage-  This  is  Mr.  Voltaire's  expuflion,  which  probabfy 
our  authors  would  not  have  ufeJ,  if  he  had  not  dignified  it  by  ufii.g  it  before 
them.     £,Jit. 


i62  A      S     H     O     R     T 

ties  on  Abraham's  travels  into  Egypt.  Do  you  ftill 
find  thefe  arguments  folid,  and  the  travels  incon- 
ceivable ? 

FOURTH     EXTRACT. 

Other  travels  of  Abraham^     Other  niijlakcs. 

Let  us  proceed  and  examine  impartially  the  hifto- 
ry  of  Abraham  and  of  his  travels.  The  remainder 
of  them  feems  to  you  no  lefs  extraordinary  than  the 
beginning  ?  We  mud  endeavour  to  make  you  com- 
prehend thi^  part  too. 

§  I.  Abrabrjn  purfues  the  four  kings  and  defeats 
them. 

That  Abraham  purfued  four  kings,  that  he  over- 
took, attacked  and  beat  them,  thefe  are,  if  we  believe 
you,  a  number  of  fa6ts  above  all  conception.  Let  us  fee 
firfl  whether  you  give  a  true  account    of  this  matter. 

Text.  "•  Abraham,  at  his  return  from  Egypt, 
"  is  reprefented  as  a  wandering  fhepherd,  between 
*'  Mount  Carmel,  and  the  Afplialted  lake.  This  i's 
"  the  moft  burning  defert  of  Arabia  Petr^a."  (Phi- 
lofophy  of  Hiftory,  article  Abraham.) 

Comment.  Abrahajn  is  reprefented  as  a  wander- 
deringfjcpherd.     Granted. 

Wandering  beiiveen  Mount  Carmel.,  Is'c.  In  Palef- 
tiiie  there  were  two  Mounts  Carmel,  the  firft,  to- 
wards the  fouth-wed,  the  other,  towards  the  fouth- 
eafl,  at  prcfent  near  the  Afphaltit  lake,  (i)  which 
you  always  callAfphalted.  Probably  you  mean  to 
jpeak  of  this  latter  Carmel. 

This  is  the  mojl  burning  dcfcrt  of  Arabia  Petraa. 
Every  one  docs  not  place,  as  you  do,  thofe  parts 
which  are  betv;een  this  mount  Carmel  and  the  Af- 
phaltit lake  ;  in  Ara'^ia  Petrcca  ;  they  are  generally 
iuppofed  to  be  in  Judea,  in  Palefline. 

(l)  IV.'.ic.'.' jo:t  ahvayi  (nil  /ffjj'.hillfj.  Tl'.e  name  of  tilis lake  con-c  from 
the  Greek  which  fay.s  Afphaltir,  and  thus  the  AccaJ«n»y  ol  Btiles  Lcctrcs 
fp  talcs.     A"t. 


COMMENTARY.  2>^^ 

sdly,  It  is  true  that  thefe  places  are  now  ??}o^  burn- 
ing ;  but  were  they  lb  when  Abraham  returned  from 
Egypt  ?  This  is  the  point  in  queltion,  and  it  is  what 
you  do  not,  and  cannot  prove.  Confider,  fir,  that 
there  was  then  no  Afphaltit  lake.  All  that  fpace 
which  it  now  takes  up  was  (till  a  fine  fruitful  coun- 
try, and  watered  with  good  waters.  Are  you  fure 
that  the  dreadful  cataflrophe,  which  changed  this 
fine  country  into  a  bituminous  lake,  caufed  no  alte- 
rations in  the  neighbouring  lands  ?  We  think  that 
an  alteration  may  judly  be  prefumed.  The  very 
name  of  Carmel  denotes  a  place  abounding  in  paftur- 
age,  and  which,  for  this  reafon,  fuited  Abraham  and 
his  numerous  flocks.  Certainly,  fir,  whilft  you  were 
writing  all  this,  you  had  in  fome  degree  loft  fight  of 
the  period  of  Abraham's  return,  and  of  the  dreadful 
event  juft  mentioned  which  ruined  this  country. 

Text.  "  A  king  of  Babylon,  a  king  of  Perfia,  a 
"  king  of  Pontus,  and  a  king  of  feveral  other  nations, 
"  form  a  league  to  make  war  againft  Sodom  and 
"  four  neighbouring  little  towns,  they  take  thefe 
"  towns  and  Sodom.    Lot  is  their  prifoner. 

"  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  five  kings,  fo  great 
"  and  fo  powerful,  formed  a  league  to  come  thus  to 
"  attack  a  clan  of  Arabians  in  fuch  a  wild  corner  of 
"  the  earth."  (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Let  us  aim  at  truth,  fir,  without  en- 
deavouring to  miflead  our  readers. 

o 

It  is  certain  that  it  would  be  hard  to  conceive  that 
five  great  and  powerful  kings,  would  have  formed  a 
league  againft  five  little  towns.  But  in  the  firft 
•place  you  reckon  Jive  kings.  We  beg  leave  to  tell 
you,  that  you  are  miftaken,  for  the  fcripture  men- 
tions only  four. 

You  afterwards  make  thefe  four  kings  great  kings^ 
powerful  juonarchs.  This,  fir,  it  is  incumbent  on 
you  to  prove,  and  how  could  you  prove  it  ?  You  can 
judge  of  their  power  only  by  the  facred  writings. 
Now  according  to  the  texts  of  our  fcriptures,  thefe 
kings,  whom  you  call  kings  of  Babylon,  Perfia,  he. 


364  A      S    H     O     R     T 

were  (i)  a  king  of  SInhar,  a  king  of  Elam,  (2)  a 
king  ot  Ellafar,  and  a  king  of  Goim.  But  what  were 
Elam,  Sinhar,  Ellafar,  &c.  were  they  large  populous 
countries?  This  is  very  improbable,  in  thofe  times 
which  were  fo  near  the  new  birth  of  the  world. 
And  if  thofe  kings  had  been  fo  powerful,  would  the 
kings  of  five  little  towns  have  dared  to  meet  them  in 
pitched  battle  ? 

We  mud  add  that  Chederlaomer  and  his  allies 
had  not  formed  a  league  merely  againll  Sodom  and 
the  four  other  little  towns,  but  againfl  all  the  nati- 
ons in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jordan  ;  againfl  the 
Rephraim,  the  Emim,  the  Horians,  the  Amorites, 
&c.  and  it  was  not  till  after  they  had  conquered  all 
thefe  nations,  that  they  came  and  attacked  the  king 
of  Sodom  and  his  allies,  who  had  been  fubdued  twelve 
years  before  by  the  king  of  Elam,  but  had  ihaken 
off  the  yoke,  and  refufed  to  pay  him  tribute. 

In  fhort,  fir,  whilft  you  make  the  four  kings  of  Sin- 
har, E!  am,  &c./)oif^7y"^^/  monarchs,  you  change  the  five 
cities  o^^ewiz^oWs  mto  five  little  towns  ',  you  make 
of  their  inhabitants  a  clan  of  Arabians,  and  of  their 
country  a  wild  corner  of  the  earth.  But  upon  what 
foundation  all  this,  I  pray  you  ? 

Ibis  country,  according  to  our fcriptures,  was  a 
delicious  valley,  covered  with  groves,  and  watered  as 

(1^  A  I'tngof  S'nhar.  Hyde,  whom  Mr.  Voltaire  has  either  read  or  not 
read,  hut  wiioni  he  quotes  and  efteems,  does  not,  as  he  does,  make  of  this  king 
of  Sinliar,  a  king  of  Bahyhiii,  but  a  king  of  the  city  of  Sinhar,  placed  accord- 
ins^'  to  hini  at  tht-  foot  of  mount  iingarus,  of  which  Pliny  fpeaks.  Rex  Sin- 
hai  non  in  Caldjea  feu  Babylonia,  fed  Sinhar  in  Mcfopotamia,  qux  urbs  ad 
radices  Montis  Sin^aras  ;  de  quo  Plinius.  Others  make  him  king  of  the 
country  of  -Senaar  whirc  Bahylon,  according  to  Mr.  Voltaire,  who  feldom 
is  confiiient  with  himfelf,  was  not  yet  built.     Edit- 

(2),}  t'lig  of  Ellafar.  The  learned  Englifli  commentator  Patrick,  places 
Ellafar  in  Celt  fyria,  where  accordingly  he  finds  a  city  called  Elas.  The  king 
of  Goim  was  according  to  him,  the  chief  of  fome  i^rabian  clans  near  Cclcly- 
ria  '1  hcfe  three  kings  were  vafl'als  of  the  king  of  Elam  or  Elymais,  Chc- 
d'  rlaomer,  who  is  believed  by  fomc  to  have  been  the  Ninyas  of  profane  au- 
thors- 

tlo'.vevcr,  altho'  we  can  have  nothing  more  than  conjecflurcs  with  refpeA 
to  the  fituation  and  extent  of  thefe  countries,  it  is  plain,  that  at  a  perioej 
when  p'^uiation  was  yc^  fo  weak,  a  king,  in  order  to  extend  his  conqncfls, 
did  not  \\  lilt  fucb  great  armies  as  th«  king  of  iUTyria  and  Bibylou  had  af- 
terwards.    Elit. 


COM  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  365 

Ec^ypt  was,  or  as  the  garden  of  the  Almighty  !  It  was 
not  then  at  that  time  a  wild  country,  and  you  con- 
found  diflcrent    periods   here   again    very    injudici- 

OUfiV. 

Even  profane  authors  fpeaking  of  this  country, 
from  ancient  traditions,  reprefent  it  as  beautiful  and 
fruitful.  But  without  allov/ing  it  to  have  had  great 
cities,  as(i)  Tacitus  does  without  reckoning  up  thir- 
teen fuch  with  Strabo,  without  believing  that  the  ru- 
ins of  Sodom,  which,  he  iiiys,  were  feenin  his  time, co- 
vered the  fpace  of  feventy-two  furlongs  in  circumfer- 
ence. We  may  fafely  pronounce  that- Sodom,  Go-, 
morrah,  ccc.  were  fomething  better  than  little 
towns. 

There  is  therefore  reafon  to  think,  that  when  you 
reprefent  the  four  allied  kings  2i^  great  kings  and pow- 
erftd  mcnarchs,  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  he.  as  lit- 
tle towns,  and  this  whole  country  as  a  wild  corner  of 
the  earth,  you  avail  yourfelf  of  that  liberty  which  is 
allowed  to  poets,  and  that  you  have  not  fcrupuloufly 
adhered  to  exa6t  truth.     But  you  fay, 

Text.  "  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  Abraham 
*'  difcomfited  fuch  pov.'erful  monarchs,  with  threa 
*'  hundred  country  fervants,  or  how  he  purfued 
"  them  even  beyond  Damafcus.  Some  tranflators 
*'  have  put  Dan  for  Damafcus  ;  but  there  was  no 
"  fuch  place  as  Dan  in  the  time  of  Mofes,  much  lef^; 
"  in  that  of  Abraham.  There  are  above  three  hun- 
"  dred  miles  from  the  extremity  of  the  Afphalted- 
"  lake,  where  Sodom  flood,  to  Damafcus.  All  thisj 
".  is  above  our  conception. '*'(Philofophy  of  Hillory.)' 

Comment.  If  you  cannot  conceive,  fir,  how 
Abraham  difcomfited  the  four  kings,  and  purfued 
them  to  Damafcus,  it  is  not  again  your  own  fault  ? 

There  are  above  three  hundred  Jiiiles,  you  fay,yro;;z, 
the  extrejnit\  a/the  Afphalted  lake,  where  Sodom  foody 

(1)  Tacitus  Joes.  Haud  froeul  inde  camp],  quos  ferunt  olim-uhcrns  magnifiui 
whlius  halitattsfulmlnumjaSuarfiJfe   \^  maiiers  •vefligia.     Hiftor.      hh.^.Avt. 


366  A    S    H     O    R    T 

io  Damafcm.  You  know  then  exaQly  were  SodortI 
flood  ?  We  wifh  you  joy  of  this  difcovery,  fir.  Hi- 
thtrto  the  moll  learned  geographers  have  been  di- 
vided on  this  point.  Some  placed  Sodom,  as  you 
do,  at  the  extremity  of  the  lake,  others  a  little  high- 
er, feveral  at  the  entrance  of  it,  near  the  mouth  of 
the  river  Jordan  ;  all  agree  that  its  fituation  is  very 
uncertain,  and  your  learned  countryman  Danville, 
not  knowing  where  to  place  it,  had  refolved  not  to 
infert  it  all  in  his  map.  Thanks  to  the  difcoveries 
which  you  have  made,  fir,  in  geography,  as  well  as 
jn  all  other  fciences,  thefe  uncertainties  have  vanifli- 
ed  ;  the  pofition  of  Sodom  is  no  longer  doubtful,  it 
ilood  at  ikeextjeviiiy  cf  (^\)lke  Afphalied  lake. 

Now^  from  the  extremity  of  the  Afphalied  lake  to 
Damajciis^  there  in  ere  more  than  three  hundred  miles, 
Are  you  very  certain  of  this?  We  form  fome  doubt 
of  it,  becaufe  in  another  place  you  fay  more  than 
C7ie  hundred  iTJks.  Ceitainly  there  is  fome  difference 
between  more  than  three  hundred  miles  and  more 
than  one  hundred  miles.  Perhaps  the  printer  has 
added  the  word  three  to  one  of  your  texts,  or  Gmitt-r 
cd  it  in  the  other.  Or  Is  this  one  of  your  ufual  ab- 
fences  of  mind  ?  Between  ourfelves,  fir,  three  hun- 
dred miles  is  much,  one  hundred  miles  is  very  little. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  diflance  might  be  about  two 
hundred   miles.     And   could    not  you  fay  fo  ? 

But  no  matter  where  Sodom  flood,  and  what  was 
the  diftance  from  Sodom  to  Damafcus.  Abraham 
did  not  go  from  Sodom,  but  from  the  valley  of  Mam- 
bre,  where  he  lived.  Now  from  this  valley  to  Dan, 
where  he  came  up  with  the  enemy,  there  are  about 
fiftv  leaojues.  Is  it  inconceivable  that  Abraham  (hould 
go  fifty  leagues,  to  refcue  a  beloved  nephew  from  the 
chains  under  which  he  groaned  ?  Is  it  inconceivable 
that  this   fmall  party  fhould,  after  fome  days  march, 

(i)  The  AfphtUed  lah.-  It  wou'd  be  proper  Tiowever  that  Mr.  Voltaire 
IkouW  conJelcend  to  prove  ttis,  were  it  only  that  he  ini2;ht  have  the  crf«lit 
of  inftruvftinjr  Mr.  Ddnville  in  gcixraphy,  and  of  r.iaUinjjthisfcjucsmifh  learn- 
ed man  determine  the  quedion  about  the  })ulitioa  of  bodom.     Ldit. 


COMMENTARY.  367 

overtake  another,  which  befides  its  own  baggage, 
dragged  after  it  a  confiderable  booty  in  fiaves  and 
cattle  ?  Truly,  fir,  if  this  is  above  your  conception^ 
your  conception  is  rather  narrow. 

What  aflonifhes  you  raoft  is,  tfjat  Abraham  JJjoitld 
have  defeated  four  kings  with  three  hundred  country 
fer*uants.  But  we  think,  fir,  that  three  hundred, 
country  fervants,  hardened  by  labour,  trained  to 
the  ufe  of  arms,  and  accuftoined  to  defend  their 
flocks  againfl  wild  beads  and  robbers,  were  a  very 
fit  party  for  fuch  an  exploit  ;  efpecially  if  we  add 
to  them,  as  it  feems  we  ought  to  do,  Abraham's 
three  allies,  Mambre,  Aner,  and  Efcol,  with  perhaps 
two  or  three  hundred  of  their  followers.  We  think 
that  fuch  a  party,  divided  into  feveral  bodies,  falling 
fuddenly  by  night,  and  from  different  quarters,  on  an 
army  whom  fleep,  and  that  fecurity  which  viftory 
infpires,  left  defencelefs,  might  without  a  miracle, 
fpread  defolation  and  terror  among  them  ;  and  after 
having  routed  them,  might  alfo  without  a  miracle, 
drive  them  fifteen  or  twenty  leagues  beyond  the  field 
of  battle ;  there  is  nothing  miraculous  or  impoiTible 
here.  Profane  and  facred  hiflory,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  fupply  us  with  many  inftances  of  fuch  de- 
feats. 

You  fay,  fir,  that  forne  tranjlators  have  -put 
Dan  injlead  of  Damafcus.  Thefe  tranflators  then, 
have  made  a  miflake,  becaufe  the  text  fays,  that  A- 
braham,  having  defeated  the  four  kings  at  Dan,  pur- 
fued  them  to  Hoba,  on  the  left  of  Damafcus ;  and 
that  Hoba  was  really  near  Damafcus  and  not  Dan. 
Never  mind  thefe  tranflators,  fir,  the  text  is  in  quef- 
tion,  not  tranflations. 

You  add,  that  there  was  no  fuch  place  as  Dan 
in  tie  time  of  Mofes,  much  lefs  in  the  time 
cf  Abraham.  It  is  true  that  in  the  time  of 
Abraham,  and  even  in  that  of  Mofes,  the  city  of 
Dan  did  not  bear  that  name  which  it  got  from  the 
Danltes.  But  does  it  follow  that  this  place  did  not 
yet  exiH,  becaufe  the  Dauites  had  net  yet  givej^theif 


368  A      S    H    O    R    T 

name  to  it  ?  The  meaning  then  of  this  verfe  is,'  that 
Abraham  overtook  the  enemy  at  that  place,  which 
was  afterwards  (i)  called  Dan,  and  that  when  he  had 
defeated  him  there,  he  purfued  him  to  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Damafcus.  Is  this  too  above  your  con- 
ception ? 

§  2.     Abraham'' s  'Journey  to  Gcrar. 

Text.  "  Abraham,  who  loved  to  travel,  went  to 
"  the  dreadful  wildernefs  of  Cades,  at  tlis  age  of  one 
"  hundred  and  fixty  years,  witli  his  wife  who  was 
"  ninety.  A  king  of  this  wildernefs  failed  not  to  fall 
"  in  love  with  Sarah,  as  the  king  of  Egypt  had  done 
*'  before.  The  father  of  the  faithful  told  the  fame 
"  lie  he  had  done  in  Egypt ;  he  gave  out  that  his 
"  wife  was  his  fiiter,  and  in  confcquence  received  as 
"before,  oxen,  male  and  female  fervants."  (Philo- 
foph.  Di<a.) 

Comment.    Abraham   who  kved  io   travel^     &c. 

Had  you  attended  a  little  more,  fir,  to  the  periods 

and    chain  of  the  events  of  which  you  are  fpeaking, 

you    would    probably  have    feen  that  Abraham  had 

•another  motive  for  retiring    to  Gerar,  befides   the 

^leafurc  cf  travelling. 

He  had  jufl  been  wltnefs  to  the  mort:  formidable 
fpeclacle.;  a  fhcwer  of  fire,  torrents  of  fujphur  and 
of  burning  bitumen,  had  confumcd  the  five  cities  and 
all  their  guilty  inhabitants.  Inilead  of  a  fruitful, 
lovely  valley,  Abraham  had  nothing  before  his  eyes 
but  a  frightful  lake,  from  whence  oflenfive  and  pef- 
tiferous  vapours  were  exhaled  to  a  great  diftance  ; 
burning  afhes  covered  all  the  neighbouring  lands. 
Is  it  extraordinary  that  Abraham,  who,  according  to 
you,  wandered  between  mount  Carmel,  and  this  now 
dreadful  fpot,  fhould  have  removed  far  from  this  djf- 


amc 


fl)  Called  Den.  Mr-  VoItrJrc  mny  conclude  from  this,  that  the  i!„,..^, 
of  Dan  was  added  to  the  ttxt  lofig;  alter  Mofes.  Even  ifwc  did  allow  it,  we 
do  not  think  tliat  he  oould  take  any  advautajje  by  tJiit  cone/  iifion.  W'c  have 
alre;idy  faid  that  it  is  very  clear  that  f.inie  of  the  proj^hcts  of  puhlicl^  writers 
have  added  explanatory  notes  to  the  text  of  ("cripturc.  The/  ;)ro  bably  alfo 
fuhftituted  fonic  modern  nanipsto  n>nie  ancient  primer  or.C4,  ici;>»uf  tthc  i^S' 
nitr  utt-c  better  Liu.wu.in  their  days.     ^- «i/. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  ^6g 

tnal  habitation  ?  And  is  it  not  reafonable  to  believe, 
that  it  was  on  this  account,  and  not  becaufe  be  loved 
to  travel,  that  he  changed  his  refidence  ?  You  niuft 
allow,  fir,  that  if  you  have  the  talent  of  raillery,  yet 
you  do  not  always  know  hov/  to  place  your  jells 
properly. 

To  the  dreadful  ivildernefs  of  Cades.  We  do  not 
affert  that  this  wildernefs  was  a  fine  country  ;  but  if 
you  reprefent  it  as  ablblutely  barren,  as  we  havetoici 
you  before,  fir,  you  are  miitaken  ;  it  was  interfperf- 
ed  with  grafs,  forclts,  and  mountains  ;  pallurage 
and  fruitful  land  was,  in  fome  fpots,  to  be  found. 
That  of  Cades,  in  particular,  was  cultivated,  plant- 
ed v.'ith  palm-trees,  and  abounding  in  corn  ;  for  this 
laft  reafon  Ifaac  retired  to  it  in  time  of  famine  ;  and 
it  is  not  improbable  that  the  dedruftion  which  hap- 
pened at  Sodom  was  followed  by  fome  kind  of  fear- 
city,  and  that  this  fcarciry  was  the  motive  that  fent 
Abraham  to  Gerar. 

You  makeliim  one  hundred  and  Jixfy  years  old  zi-befi 
Sarah  was  but  ninety.  This  is  an  error  which  vou 
perfifl  in  repeating.  No,  fir,  Abraham  was  not 
then  one  hundred  and  fixty  years  old,  he  was  but 
one  hundred.     The  fcripture  fays  it  plainly. 

I'ailcd  fiot  to  fall  in  love  ivith  Sarah ^  ike.  Wo 
grant  that  it  is  not  common  for  a  w^cnian  of  nine- 
ty to  caufe  love;  but,  as  you  very  well  obferve,  Sa- 
rah was  then  pregnant ;  the  fame  mir;;cle  which  ena- 
bled her  to  be  a  mother,  and  to  fuckle  a  child,  mi^hr, 
or  rather  mud  have  given  her  the  charms  of  youth. 
A  woman  in  the  weaknefs  and  wrinkles  of  eld  afc 
cannot  bear  children.  The  return  of  Sarah's  beauty 
was  therefore  lefs  allonifliing  than  her  prc^^nancv. 

The  father  of  ibe  faithful  told  the  fane  llc^  kc. 
You  make  no  difference  then  between  lying  and  c- 
quivocating.  We  do  not  judify  the  latter,  and  yet 
We  think  that  thefe  two  things  ihouM  not  be  con- 
founded. May  it  not  bejuflly  faid,  that  when  Abra- 
ham is  in  queilion,  your  mcrality  ha^  more  feveriry 
than  julhiefi. 


37©  A      S    H    O    R    T      ' 

In  confequence  received  as  before ^  &c.  You  fee, 
fir,  that  Pharaoh,  was  not  the  only  one  who  made 
great  prefents  ;  the  king  of  a  wildernefs,  as  well  as 
he  gdiVQjJ:>eep  and  oxen.  Was  this  king  of  ^  dread- 
ful wildernefsy  a  great  king  and  a  powerful  monarch 
alfo  ? 

Upon  the  whole,  when  we  reflect  on  the  noble 
difintereflednefs  with  which  Abraham,  after  his  vic- 
tory over  the  four  kings,  refufcd,  notwithftanding 
the  king  of  Sodom's  reqaeft,  to  accept  any  fhare  of 
the  fpoils  which  he  had  refcued  from  the  enemy,  muft 
we  not  rejetft  with  indignation  the  Ihocking  charge 
you  make  againft  him  ? 

Thefe  are  therefore  fome  fmall  mlftakes  in  what 
you  fay  of  Abraham's  victory,  and  of  his  journey  to 
Gerar,  which  ought  to  be  corrected. 

FIFTH    EXTRACT. 

Promifes  made  to  Abraham. 

You  have  negleded,  fir,  a  very  favourable  op- 
portunity, and  a  very  eafy  method  of  rendering  your  , 
^ejiions  Encyclopedi.jues  the  mofl  interefling  part  of 
your  works.  You  might  have  turned  the  alphabe- 
tical order  you  follow  in  them  to  your  profit,  by 
reviewing  fucceflively  and  coolly  your  ideas  and  af- 
fertions  on  that  immenfity  of  fubjecti  which  you 
have  treated.  By  this  means  thofe  queftions,  per- 
haps the  laft  work  which  you  will  have  time  to  pub- 
lifli,  would  have  become  an  ufeful,  necelTary,  and 
confequently  a  very  valuable  errata,  fit  to  be  placed 
at  the  end  of  all  your  works.  This  modell  and 
fcrupulous  diflidence  of  your  own  talents  would  have 
plcafed  the  world  ;  they  would  have  admired  that 
noble  fpirit  of  generofity  which  confeffes  its  mif- 
takes ;  and  even  your  enemies  mud  have  allowed 
that  vou  had  a  regard  for  truth. 

But  fo  far  from  retracing  your  former  errors, 
you  repeat  them  perpetually  almoft  in  every  article, 
and  add  new  ones  to  them. 


COMMENTARY.  371 

Thus  the  article  Abraham,  which  is  now  before 
us,  is  but  a  repetition  of  what  you  have  (i)  often 
already  repei-ited  ;  there  is  nothing  new  in  it  but 
what  is  foreign  to  it,  and  a  little  objecHon  befides, 
copied  again  from  Tindal.  The  fubjed  is  the  pro- 
mifes  made  to  Abraham.  If  we  are  to  believe  you, 
fome  bold  criticks  aiTert,  that  thefe  promifes  were 
fallacious,  and  that  God  did  not  fulfil  his  engage- 
ments.    They  fay. 

Text.  "  The  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham  and 
*'  faid  to  him,  for  all  the  land  zuhich  thou  Jeeji,  io 
"  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  thy  feed  for  ever.^*  In 
Semplternum,  (Genefis  13th.) 

"  The  Lord  by  another  oath  promifes  him  after-* 
"  wards,  every  thing  that  lies  between  the  Nile  and 
**  the  Euphrates.**  (Ibidem  ch.  15.)  Quellions  fur 
TEncyclopedie,  article  Abraham. 

CoMMEN'^.  What  fhall  we  conclude  from  thefe 
paffages,  fir  ?  Shall  we  fay  that  this  land  was  pro- 
mifed  and  given  to  Abraham,  to  enjoy  it  himfelf  ? 
Some  free-thinkers  have  afiferted  this  ;  but  fee  what 
the  celebrated  (2)  Abbe  Fourmont  fays  of  it  ; 
"  this  aflertion,  he  fays  with  fpirit,  arifes  merely 
''  from  ignorance  of  the  fcriptures.  No,  God  had 
"  not  given  this  land  to  Abraham,  he  had  promif- 
*'  ed  it  to  him,  and  that  for  his  pofterity.  The 
"  promife  is  clearly  exprefled  in  th^  12th  chapter 
"  of  Genefis,  arid  the  LQrd  appeared  unto  Abraham 
and  faid,  unto  thy  feed  ivill  I  give  this  land.  And 
altho'  in  the  13th  chapter,  God  fays  afterwards  to 
Abraham,  I  will  give  it  to  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  for 
ever  ;  yet  the  fenfe  of  the  promife  is  determined, 
and  theaccompllflim.entofit  fixed  to  a  certain  time. 


(C 

cc 


(1)  Ofi.'n  alrtjiy  rcp:af:<i.  It  muft  be  allowed  that  for  a  lorjj  time  this 
illuftrious  writer  Iws  done  nothing  more  than  repeat  not  only  what  others 
have  faid,  but  alfo  what  he  has  faid  himfelf  more  than  once-  He  is  perpe- 
tually repeating.      Edit. 

(2)  Ab^i  Fourmont.  This  is  talcen  from  h\i  Mtneaab  or  Giri^le  tf  Sorrov, 
a  work  in  whi«h  this  learned  prof^ffor  of  Arabick  attacks  violently  the 
alTcrtion  of  Abbe  d'Asfeld  who  entirely,  without  the  finiilcr  iulention  of 
the  free -ihiiikers,  had  broached  this  opiaica.     Chri^. 


2^^t  A       SHORT 

"  that  is,  to  four  hunclrecl  years  after.  Know  of  a 
^^  Jureiy,  faith  he  to  Abraham,  that  thy  feed  Jhall  be 
"  a  ftrangcr  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs^  and  f 3 all 
*'  ferve  them^  and  they  fhall  afflid  t he tn  for  four  hun- 
"  drcd  years.  But  in  the  fourth  generation  they  fhall 
*'  co7nc  hither  again,  for  the  iniquity  of  the  Ainorites  is 
"  not  yet  full.  Where  is  the  neccfiity,  fays  this 
*'  learned  man,  of  producing  palTages  here  which 
"  even  children  have  by  heart  ?  Are  not  there  a 
*'  rhoufand  palfages  in  the  reft  of  the  Pentateuch, 
"  which  determine  this  point  exaftly  ?  And  what 
"  book  in  the  world  clears  up  points  better  !" 

Therefore  it  cannot  be  faid  that  this  land  was 
given  or  promifed  to  Abrahan  for  his  own  enjoyment. 
And  therefore  your  bold  criticks  do  not  go  fo  far. 
They  only  aflx. 

Text.  "  How  could  God  promife  them  that  im- 
**  menfe  trad  of  land,  the  country  between  the  Eu- 
*'  phrates  and  the  river  of  Egypt,  which  the  Jews 
"  never  poffeiTed  ?"     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  It  feems  to  us,  fir,  that  David  had 
carried  his  conquefts  (1)  from  the  Euphrates  to  the 
riverof  Egypt;  and thatSolomon's dominions  extend- 
ed, with  the  nations  which  were  tributary  to  him, 
from  one  river  to  the  other.  The  Hebrews  therefore 
poffefled  this  immenfe  trad,  not  as  an  inheritance ; 
it  was  neither  given  (2)  nor  promifed  to  them  under 
this  title  ;  but  as  a  conquefl  ;  and  if  this  conqueft 
was  neither  fo  complete,  (3)  nor  fo  lafting  as  they 
had  rcufon  to  hope,  the  reaibn  of  this  will  foon  ap- 
pear. 


(1)  Trnmihc  EitfJjraU!  lothe  rinier  of  Egypt,  See  Kings,  ad  boolc,  ch.  8. 
Cl.roiiic'.cs,  book  ill,  cli.   i-8,  &c      Avt. 

(2)  N^r  promifed  to  thnn  under  this  ilth.  The  land  of  Canaan  only  had 
been  wiven  to  the  Jfraelites  as  an  inheritance.  Ths  fcripture  obferves  it  cx.> 
vref>!y  in  fcvcral  places.    -Edit. 

(7,)  N-jr  fo  Lifiiny.  Davi<i  Iia  1  n'^t  yet  conquered  the  country  of  the  Si»lo- 
rians,  Tyriaiis,  &c.  And,'mo{l  of  the  ttiliutary  nations,  foon  (hook  off  th« 
yoke,  fonie  of  them  towards  the  clofe  of  Soloaion's  reign,  the  others  fooD 
uftcr.     I!c:3t. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  373 

Text.  "  How  could  God  give  them  that  Ih- 
*'  tie  fpot  of  Paleftinc  for  ever  and  ever,  from 
"  which  they  have  been  driven  fo  long  a  time  fmce  ?'* 
(Ibidem.) 

Comment.  How!  Bccaufe  when  promifes  are 
conditional,  and  that  the  conditions  are  not  ful- 
filled by  one  fide,  the  engagements  is  void  on  the 
other. 

Now  all  our  fcriptures  atteH;,  that  the  promifes  of 
poffefling  the  land  of  Canaan  were  made  conditional- 
ly to  our  fathers.  And  what  elfe  can  be  the  mean- 
ing of  fo  many  exhortations  to  cbferve  the  law,  if 
they  wifiied  to  remain  poffeffors  of  the  land  ;  and  of 
all  thofe  threateninijs,  that  the  earth  (liould  vomit 
them  forth  from  her  bofom,  as  it  had  done  the  anci- 
ent inhabitants,  if  they  imitated  their  idolatry  and 
their  crimes  ? 

Your  criticks  infift  on  the  words,  for  ever,  in 
fempiternum,  to  the  end  of  all  oges.  We  may  an- 
fwer  them  that  the  Hebrew  words  which  arc  thus 
rendered,  fignify  only  a  long  and  indefinite  fpace  of 
time  ;  there  are  numberlefs  inflances  of  this  in  fcrip- 
ture. 

But  who  has  told  them  that  the  revolution  of  ages, 
and  the  decrees  of  providence,  may  not  bring  about 
more  happy  times  for  us  ;  and  that  the  Jews,  drivea 
fo  long  from  their  inheritance,  fliall  never  enter  into 
it  again?  The  light  of  Ifrael  is  not  extinct,  and  the 
hope  of  once  more  feeing  their  darling  country  in  a. 
flouriflung  ftate,  llili  lives  in  their  hearts. 

In  a  word,  the  promife  of  pofirefhng  the  land  of 
Canaan  was  conditional  ;  it  was  made  to  Abraham 
only  for  his  pofterity  ;  his  dcfcendants  pofl'effcd  this 
land  of  promife  for  a  long  time ;  the  terms  of  the 
promife  can  fignlfy  no  more  ;  and  if  they  did,  the 
hope  of  Ifrael  is  not  entirely  loll:.  We  think,  fir, 
that  thefe  connderations  are  a  fuflicient  juilihcation 
of  the  faithfulncfs  of  God  in  his  promifes.  But  you 
fay, 

'\  B 


374 


SHORT 


Text.  "  The  Lord  adds  to  his  promlfes,  that 
*'  the  pofterity  of  Abraham  (hall  be  as  numerous  as 
"  the  dud  of  the  earth.  So  that  if  a  ?nan  can  num^ 
*'  ber  the  dujl  of  the  earthy  thenfhall  thy  feed  alfo  be 
*'  numbered.*" 

"  Other  criticks  fay,  that  there  are  not  four  hun- 
*'  dred  thoufand  Jews  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  not- 
*'  withllanding  that  they  have  always  looked  on 
*'  marriage  as  a  facred  duty,  and  that  their  chief 
*'  object  has  always  been  population.  We  anfwer 
"  to  thefe  objections,  &c.'* 

Comment.  We  anfwer  (i)to  thefe  ohjcdicns.  If  w e 
were  to  anfwer  as  you  do,  the  anfwers  would  be 
■weak  enough.  Let  us  endeavour  to  give  fomc  more 
fatisfadtory. 

I  ft.     Even  if  it  was  clear  that  there  did  not  exifl 
this  day  more  than  four  hundred  thoufand  Jews  oh 
the  face  of  the  earth,  could    v/e   thence   conclude 
that  the  pofterity   of  Abraham  has   not    been,  ac- 
cording to    the  promife,   prodigioufly    great  ?    Let 
us  not  mention,  a$  you  do,   that   infinite  multitude 
of  children    by   adoption,  and  in  the   faith  ;    let  us. 
reckon  neither   the  defcendants  of  Efau,  nor   thofe 
of  the   fons    of  Agar    and   Ccthura.     Would   not 
thofe  Ifraelites  only,  who   fmce    the   time   of  x\bra- 
ham  until  our  days,   have  defcended  from  him,  make 
up  a  generation   numerous   enough   to  juftify  the 
Hebrew  figure,  which  compares  them  to   the  ftars 
of    the    firmament,    and    the  duft   of   the    earth  ? 
And  what  another  innumerable  race  of  defcendants 
to  this  patriarch  would  four  hundred  thoufand  Jews 
infure,    who  look  upon  marriage  as  a  facred  duty^  and 
ivhofe  chief  objed  is  population  ? 

2dly.  But  are  your  criticks  very  certain,  that" 
there  are  not  at  this  day  four  hundred  thoufand 
Jews  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  We  are  not  fond  of 

(i)  To  thefe  ohjtnioKt.  Mr.  Voltaire's  anfwer  is,  that  the  church,  in 
fuccelTion  to  the  fynaj;ogue',  i»  Abrahaiii's  true  race,  and  that  it  is  indfe'l 
very  numerous.  This  anfwer  cannot  be  vtry  fatisfaitory  to  th«  Jcwj. 
Cbrijf. 


COMMENTARY.  375 

rfiaking  a  parade  of  our  numbers  ;  it  is  even  a  ftroke 
of  policy  in  us  to  conceal  it  (i)  in  fevcral  places. 
But  without  entering  here  into  particulars,  which 
might  be  detrimental  to  us,  without  raifing  up  again 
thofe  chimeras  with  which  our  nation  for  a  long 
time  fed  itfelf,  thofe  pretended  kingdoms  of  Thema, 
Cofar,  Chavila,  the  fabulous  empire  beyond  (2)  the 
Cordeliers,  &c.  &c.  have  your  criticks  never  made 
this  obfervation,  that  there  is  no  part  of  the  world 
in  which  we  have  not  fettlements  ?  Call  your  eyes 

(0  In fivsral places.  Father  Nau,  in  his  travels  through  the  holy  land, 
afcribes  tliis  piece  of  policy  to  the  Jews  of  Jcrufalcm.  Haffclquift  fuppofcB 
tlicm  to  amount  to  thirty  thoufand  in  that  city  only.     C/jii/l. 

(i)  Tbe  CurJelicn.  Some  of  the  nioft  famous  rabbie?,  mided  doubtlcfs  by 
falfe  relations,  for  a  long  time  fed  their  nation  with  thcfs  idle  ftories.  Beu- 
}amin  de  Tude!e,  a  traveller  of  the  twelfth  century,  fays,  that  he  found  the 
kingdom  of  I'hema,  at  twenty  days  marc!*  from  Babylon,  northward,  whicli 
was  iahabiteJ  by  Je\vs  called  the  fons  of  Rechab  ;  that  this  kingdom  ei- 
tenJs  into  the  mountains  for  fixtecn  days  n^arch  ;  that  they  reckon  two  hun- 
dred villages  in  it,  an  hundred  towns,  forty  cities,  and  three  hundred  thou- 
fand Jwws  in  thcfe  cities,  inured  to  arms,  and  formidable  to  their  neighbours. 

Eldad,  who  fays  he  was  of  the  tribe  t;f  Dan,  and  who  wrote  probab'y  at 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century,  relates  that  the  tribe  of  Dan,  followed  by 
thofe  of  Gad,  Nepthali,  and  Afher,  retired  into  Ethiopia  before  the  deftruc- 
lion  of  the  firft  temple,  that  they  fettled  in  the  ancient  Chavila,  where  they 
have  gold,  filver,  precious  ftones,  numerous  flocks,  &c.  that  when  they  g'» 
to  war  the  trumpet  is  founded,  and  that  an  hundred  thoufand  men  of  caval- 
ry, and  an  equal  number  of  infantry  are  aflembled,  that  each  tribe  carries  on 
war  'f.y  itfelf  during  three  months,  after  which  the  booty  is  divided  ,  thac 
there  itre  many  of  Samfon's  (ltfi.eudants  amorg  them,  who  are  ali  hcroctj 
Sac.     &c. 

According  to  the  fame  Eldad,  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  and  the  half  tribe  of 
Manaffc,  pufftfs  the  kingdom  of  Cofar,  and  twenty-tivc  neighbourirg  king- 
doms pay  them  tribute.  He  fpeaks  alfo  of  another  tribe,  that  of  Mofes,  fet- 
tled near  the  river  Sambarim,  in  a  fertile  country  aboundingin  caftles 
and  fupcrb  habitations.  There  no  unclean  or  deRrudive  animals  ire  to  be 
found,  no  flies,  foxes  or  ferpents,  &c.  in  a  word,  nothing  that  can  bi^^Urt- 
fsl  ;  the  fhecp  bear  twice  in  the  year,  and  the  children  never  die  before  ^^dc 
■fathers,  who  live  to  an  hundred  and  twenty  years.  The  river  rclls  during 
fit  days  billows  of  faud,  mixed  with  rocks,  and  this  with  a  noife  fimilar  to 
that  of  thunder,  or  of  a  boifterous  fea  ;  on  the  fcvtnth  day  the  river  flops, 
and  is  furrounded  with  a  fire  which  fpreads  to  the  diftancc  of  ha  f  a  mile,  all 
around,  and  hinders  every  one  from  approaching  it,  &c. 

I  eritful,  a  Jew  of  Ferrara,  in  his  5^;;/rVrx  du  MonJc,  a  w^ork  publifhed  in 
I52-,  and  the  Rabbi  Gerfon,  the  fon  of  Elici.er,  in  an  account  pubhfhed  to- 
wards the  middle  of  the  lad  century,  relate  things  ilill  more  wonderful  of 
ihe  river  and  country  of  Sambarim.  Manafle,  a  famous  Rabl)i,  truftingta 
the  ;e.1imony  of  Aaron  Levi,  a  Spanifh  Jew,  who  is  alfo  called  Montecino<<, 
ff>eaks  in  his  Ef^cmnce  Xlfucl,  of  a  vaft  country  beyond  the  Cordeliers,  peo- 
pled by  Jews  who  are  powerful  and  numerous,  &c.  outh  are  the  ron;ances  ia 
which  the  Jewilh  nation  reaps  comfort  for  its  lofTes,  and  feeds  its  hopes.  It 
appears  that  our  v\riters  havi  but  an  indiffcrcHt  opinion  ef  thtfc  acceuntfc 
SctBafuajje,  3irAtti;r,  li,.ljri:al  Mays  ea  the  J-W9,  &c.     C/rj?, 


376  A      S    H    O    R    T 

from  the  bounds  (i)  of  Italy  to  thofe  (2)  of  England, 
pafs  from  Tyrol,  to  the  bottom  of  Siberia,  to  the 
Tartars,  to  China,  India,  Perfia,  Arabia,  to  the 
tvhole  (3)  Ottoman  empire  ;  every  where  you  find 
Jews.  Africa  fees  them  not  only  on  its  coafts  in 
Egypt,  Algiers,  Morocco,  ^vC.  but  even  in  the  inte- 
rior parts  ;  and  we  already  reckon  feveral  fynagogues 
in  America.  Do  you  think,  fir,  that  the  Jews,  thus 
fpread  from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other,  do 
not  amount  to  four  hundred  thoufand  ?  We  think 
you  did  not  form  this  judgment  of  us,  when  com- 
paring us  to  the  Banians  and  the  (4)  Guebres,  you 
fay. 

Text.  "  Thefe  tv/o  nations  are  fpread  over  only 
"  one  part  of  the  Kaft,  but  the  Jews  are  fpread  over 
**  the  face  of  the  whole  earth  ;  and  if  they  were  ga- 
*'  thered  together  they  would  form  a  iTRich  more 
'*  numerous  people  than  they  ever  were  in  that  (hort 
*'  fpace  of  time  in  which  they  were  fovereigns  of  Pa- 
*'  leftine.'*     (Premiers  Melanges,  art.   des  Juifs.) 

Comment.  This  is,  we  think,  plainly  contradic- 
ting your  criticks,  for  furcly  you  will  not  fay  that 
when  David  was  vanquifhing  the  Ammonites,  fiib- 
duing  Idumea,  taking  Damafcus,  and  extending  his 

(l)  Of  Italy-  Thejewsarc  tolerated  in  all  tlie  Italian  Oatcs ;  they  have 
academics  at  Rome,  Ltghorn,  Vtnicc,  &c.  tlicy  have  more  than  an  liundrtd 
fynai^ojjues  in  the  Eccle'laftical  flate.     IJeiy. 

(a)  Of  Etighiml.  We  are  aifured  that  if  the  Jews  of  Italy,  the  Comtar, 
France,  H  Uuiid,  and  Enjjland  were  put  together,  they  would  amount  to 
live  hundred  thoufand,  and  twice  this  nurwbtr  may  be  found  in  Germany, 
Poland,  and  Rufiia.     Idem. 

(3)  Oltoman  empire.  The  Italian  Rahbi  Simon  Lusatier,  reckoned  up 
ninety  thoufand  Jmvs  atSalonica  and  Conflantinojilc,  and  more  than  a  mil- 
lion of  them  inthcTurkifh  dominions  ;  Pnjfjno,   he  fays,  It  milioni. 

Bafnagc  gives  liis  opinion  ftill  more  clearly.  "  It  is  hard,  he  fays,  to  de- 
"  termine  at  tliit  time,  the  number  of  fouls  of  whitb  this  nation  now  con- 
*'  firts,  howfver  we  may  fafeiy  compute  them  at  thr»e  millions."  Thefe  cal- 
culations differ  much  from  thofe  of  the  bold  criticks  quoted  by  Mr.  Vol- 
taire-     I  Jem. 

(4)  Aril  la  tl>r  Gti'&tes.  That  is  to  the  Parfi.  The  word  Gudrt  is  a  re- 
proach, it  fignifiesan /n/W.  The  Turks  give  this  people  that  nane  thro* 
contempt,  wliom  they  look  Ujion  as  idolaters,  and  wordupper*  of  fire  ;  tluy 
hate  them  asfuch,  and  h:\ve  a  long  titne  perfccuted  them.  How  happen?  it 
that  Mr.  Vi.ltaiia  gives  this  opprobriour.  name  to  his  dear  Parfi,  a  people 
who,  according  t«  hiin,  has  protcflcd  a  pure  religion  lincc  the  worltl  be- 
gan.    £iJi/. 


COMMENTARY.  377 

conqueds  from  the   Euphrates  to  the  frontiers  of 
Egypt,  the  Jewlfh  nation  confided  of  7nuch  lefs  than 
four  hundred  thouf and  fouls. 

If  it  had  always  confifted  of  a  much  lefs  number, 
would  the  kings  of  Affyria,  Babylon,  thofe  of  Egypt, 
Syria,  even  the  Romans  have  fent  fuch  powerful  ar- 
mies, and  fuch  great  generals  to  fubdue  them  ?  We 
muH;  then  fuppofe,  that  this  little  nation  was  very 
warlike ;  now  you  tell  us,  that  it  was  lefs  fo  than  the 
Egyptians  ever  coivards. 

therefore,  fir,  your  criticks  cannot  be  right,  ex- 
cept you  are  wrong,  very  wrong.  We  prefer  the 
fuppolition  that  they  are  miflaken,  and  we  will  op- 
pofe  your  authority  to  theirs  on  the  prefent  number 
of  the  Jews,  and  conclude  that  the  promife  made  to 
Abraham,  that  he  (hould  be  the  father  of  a  great 
multitude,  may  be  looked  on  as  literally  accomplifii- 
cd,  fince  he  has  had  fo  many  defcendants. 

§    1 .   7  he  difficulties  of  the  learned  critick  on  the  hif- 
tory  of  Abraham^  and  our  anfwers  fwnmcd  up. 

Would  you  wifli  now,  fir,  to  fee  at  one  view  what 
your  difficulties  on  the  hiftory  of  Abraham  and  our 
anfwers  amount  to  ?  Thus  the  account  (lands. 

You  objed  to  us  the  long  journey  he  undertook, 
and  you  cannot  tell  from  whence  he  fet  out;  you 
talk  of  a  dreadful  dlftance,  and  you  confefs  that  it 
confilled  only  of  an  hundred  leagues  ;  you  fay  thers 
was  a  prodigious  difference  between  the  languages, 
and  thefe  languages  had  fuch  an  affinity,  that  who- 
foever  underilood  one,  mull  eafily  have  underllood 
the  other. 

You  tell  us  of  deferts,  which  exift  only  in  your 
imagina!-ion  ;  of  old  age,  which  was  the  bloom  of  life; 
and  of  fome  pretended  anachronifms,  whiift  you  fall 
into  real  ones  yourfelf. 

You  object  to  us  the  traditions  of  the  Arabians, 
and  you  take  thefe  traditions  from  very  mo  Jern  au- 
thors, deflitutc  as  you  confefs  of  tafle  and  know- 
ledge \  you  produce  writings  againll  us,  v/hich  you 


.« 


378  A      SHORT 

affirm  to  be  the  molt  ancient  on  earth,  and  which 
were  written  fcarce  fix  hundred  yeais  before  the 
chriflian  era  ;  alfo  a  book  whicli  you  cry  up,  altho* 
the  tranflator  of  it  declares  it  wretched  ;  alfo,  an 
abridgment  of  this  book  which  you  are  fo  well  ac- 
quainted with,  that  you  took  it  for  a  man. 

You  fend  Abraham  the  diltance  of  two  hundred 
leagues  from  Sichem  to  Memphis  to  feek  for  bread, 
and  there  is  not  that  diitance  between  Sichem  and 
Memphis  ;  and  Abraham  did  not  fet  out  from  Si- 
chem, and  did  not  go  to  Memphis;  he  could  not  go 
to  it  for  this  good  reafon,  that  Memphis  did  not  then 
exilt ;  and  even  if  it  had,  he  might  have  got  bread 
nearer  home. 

In  order  to  render  Abraham's  vi£lory  incredible, 
indead  of  four  king*  you  reckon  five  ;  you  make  of 
thefe  kings  powerful  monarchs,  without  knowing 
their  dominions.  You  reprefent  to  yourfelf  the 
valley  of  Sodom,  &c.  as  a  favage  corner  of  the 
earth,  and  it  was  a  lovely  fruitful  country  ;  you 
place  a  bituminous  lake  in  it,  and  there  was  no  lake. 
You  will  not  allow  that  a  fmall  army  may  defeat  a 
great  oner,  and  hiflory  fupplies  us  with  many  inflan- 
C€S  of  it. 

You  afTert,  that  God  did  not  give  the  promifed 
land  in  poffeflion  to  the  Ifraelites,  and  the  Ifraelites 
aifure  you,  that  they  have  pofTefTed  it,  and  that  if 
they  did  not  pofTefs  it  more  fully,  and  for  a  longer 
time,  it  was  their  own  faults. 

Laflly,  in  order  to  fhew  that  the  poflerity  of  Abra- 
ham has  not  been  fo  numerous  as  the  promife  faid, 
you  reduce  the  a£laal  number  of  jews  to  four  hun- 
dred thoufand,  and  the  Je^vs  will  tell  you  in  your  ear, 
that  they  confill  of  four  millions  of  fouls  ;  and  they 
think  that  four  millions  of  men,  without  reckoning 
thole  that  have  died  fmce  the  time  of  Abraham  un- 
til now,  and  thofe  that  fhall  be  born  until  the  con- 
fummation  of  -cges,  a'e  a  noble  race. 

We  fubmit  this  to  you,  fir,  whether  the  anfwers 
are  not  as  good  as  the  objedions.     Let  us  conclude 


C  O  iM  U  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  379 

by  a  reflection  which  the  hiftory  of  Abraham  and  of 
his.travcls  has  fuggelled  to  you  concerning  his  com- 
mentators. 

Text.  "  Commentators  have  wrote  a  prodigi- 
"  ous  number  of  books  to  juflify  Abraham's  con- 
"  dud  and  to  reconcile  chronology  ;  we  muft  there- 
*'  fore  refer  the  reader  to  thefe  comments.  They 
*'  are  all  written  by  elegant  polifned  geniufe?,  totally 
"  free  from  prejudice  and  pedantry,  excellent  meta- 
"  phyficians. 

Comment.  Many  commentators,  fo  far  from 
having  wrote  books  to  juflify  Abraham's  condudt, 
have  condemned  ir  without  hefitation  ;  this  we  have 
faid  already  ;  and  thofe  who  have  endeavoured  to 
juftify  him,  have  not  wrote  volumes  for  that  pur- 
poTe. 

Nor  have  a  prodigious  number  of  books  been  writ- 
ten, to  reconcile  the  chronology  of  Abraham's  hiilo- 
ry.  The  whole  difficulty  lies  (i)  in  one  pafl'age, 
which  has  or  might  have  been  cleared  up  in  a  few 
words. 

We  mujl  therefore  refer  the  reader  to  thefe  comments. 
Perhaps  the  reader  might   better  be  referred  to  the 

(l"i  lit  nne pajf.-.ge.  Tliis  paffage,  (as  we  faid  3!iovc,)  is  the  3ad  verfe  of 
the  nth  chap,  of  Genefis,  where  it  is  Taid,  thnt  Thare  died  at  the  age  of 
two  hundred  and  five  years.  We  have  ohferved  that  this  ditiiculty  is  re- 
moved by  the  Samaritan  text,  which  give"!  I'hare  init  one  hundred  and  for- 
ty-five years  af  the  time  of  his  death,  which  agrees  perfecftly  with  the  pe- 
riod of  ^'^braham's  birth,  feventy  years  after  the  birth  of  h.s  father.  We 
think  wc  flia'l  oblige  our  readers  by  inferting  here,  what  a  writer  has  faid 
•f  it,  who  is  famous  for  his  knowledge  of  the  fcriptiires,  (Mr.  Rondct,  Jour- 
nnl  de  Verdun,  Anguft  I769.)  'I'h;:  difference  between  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Samaritan  text,  (he  fays)  is  not  fo  great  as  it  appears  at  firft.  Thefe  fum< 
may  have  been  written  in  numeral  letters,  and  then  the  difference  \v\\\  ha 
reduced  to  a  Tingle  flroke  of  the  pen.  The  letter  koph,  fignifics  an  hun'^red 
and  the  letter  men.,  forty,  now  this  latter  differs  from  the  former,  but  by  a 
(troke  of  the  pen.  Let  no  one  fay  that  this  reading  contradiifls  the  Hebrew 
text,  the  vuIgate,  and  the  feptuagint,  fo  far  from  this  it  comes  to  their  afTil- 
tance,  by  folving  the  di'Jiculty  which  occurs  in  all  thefe  three,  and  which  an- 
resrcd  to  St.  Jcrom  inl(dvab!e.  'Ihc  faults  which  creep  into  a  text  are  not 
that  text  To  clear  up  the  text  is  not  contradi<5ling  it-  No  it  is  rather  ha- 
niihing  the  fpots,  and  reftoring  it  to  its  former  fplcndour.  Tliis  readiii<; 
docs  not  contradi(fl  any  part  of  the  text  of  fcripture.  On  the  contrary  it  re- 
coMci'es  them  a;l.  Here  is  a  dear  aud  fatisfadory  folution,  and  yet  w«  fee 
it  IS  not  a  volume.     Gbrijl, 


38o  A       S     H     O    R     T        ' 

learned  difcoverles  of  the  prefent  gentlemen ;  they 
are  all  written  by  judicious  and  moderate  men,  peo- 
ple of  deep  learning,  who  reafon  juitiy,  are  free 
from  prejudice,  and  as  we  have  ihewn,  are  noway 
giddy. 

SIXTH     EXTRACT. 

Of  the  yews,  and  of  the  various  imputations  which  the 
illujirious  writer  cojis  on  them. 

We  fhall  proceed  now  with  your  leave,  fir,  from 
the  hiftory  of  the  patriarch,  to  the  judgments  which 
youpafs  on  his  defcendants.  Alas,  how  you  handle 
them,  fir  !  pungent  raillery,  bitter  farcafms,  angry 
appellations,  falfe  and  often  infamous  cuarges  !  In 
Ihort  you  indulge  yourfelf  in.  every  thing  that  can 
blacken  their  charadfers. 

n  you  were  one  of  thofe  obfcure  fcribblers,  whofe 
works  are  doomed  to  die  before  themfelves,  we 
fhould  be  little  nioved  by  thefe  accufations.  But 
your  talents  and  your  name  are  fo  likely  to  giva 
them  weight,  that  we  think  an  anfwer  unavoidable. 
Vv^e  have  already  confuted  fome  of  your  charges  j 
let  us  now  difcufs  fome  more  of  them. 

§  1 .  ImputatioJi  that  they  are  a  vulgar  Tiation,  un- 
acquainted with  the  arts. 

One  of  the  mildefl  charges  you  have  laid  againfl' 
our  fathers,  is  that  they  were  always  vulgar  and  ig- 
norant. You  had  faid  it  many  times,  and  you  re- 
peat it  again  in  one  of  your  lafl  works.  You  there 
talk  of  them  as  of 

Text.  "  A  wretched  nation,  ever  ignorant 
"  and  vulgar,  ftrangers  to  trade  and  the  arts." 

Comment.  The  Hebrews  were  a  vulgar  people. 
Do  vou  think,  fir,  that  no  nations  are  worthv  of  ef- 
teem  but  polifhed  nations,  fuch  as  the  Athenians^ 
and  the  French  ?  What  do  you  th'nk  then  of  thofe 


COMMENTARY.  381 

renowned  people    the  Cretans,  the  Spartans,  were 
they  wretched  nations  ? 

Strangers  to  the  arts.     Does  it  become  you,  a  wri- 
ter of  the  eighteenth  century,  to  charge  the  ancient 
■Hebrews  with  ignorance?    A  people,   who,   whillt 
your  barbarous  anceflor  ,  whil^  even  the  Greeks  and 
Latins  wandering  in  the  woods,  could  fcarcely  pro- 
cure for    themfelves  cloathing,  and   a  fettled  fubfifK 
ence,    already  poffefTed  all  arts  of  neceility,  and  fome 
aifo  of  mere  pleafure  ;  who  not    on-y  knew  how  to 
feed   and  rear  cattle,  till  the  earth,  work  up  wood, 
ftone  and  metals,  w.ave  cloaths,  dye  wool,  embroi- 
der (lutfs,  polifh  and  engrave  on  precious  (tones,  but 
who,  even  then,  adding  to  manual  arts  thofe  of  taite 
and  refinemenr,  furveyed  land,  appointed  their  feili- 
vals  according  to  the  motion  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
and  ennobled  their  folemnities  by  the  pomp  of  cere- 
monies, by  the  found  of  inilruments,   mufick    and 
dancing  ;   who  even  then    committed  to  writing  the 
hidory  of  the  origin  of  the  world,  that  of  their  own 
nation,  and  of  their  anceilors ;  who  had  poets  and 
writers  (killed  in  all   the  fciences  then   known,  great 
and  brave  commanders,  a  pure  worfhip,  jud  laws,  a 
wife  form  of  government ;  in  fliort,  who  is  the  only 
one,  of  all  ancient  nations,  that  has  left  us  authentic 
monuments  of  genius  and  of  literature.     Can  this 
nation  be  juftly  charged  with  ignorance  ? 

The  Hebrews  werejirangers  to  the  arts.  We  con- 
fefs  that  they  did  not  know,  like  the  Greeks,  how  to 
animate  the  canvafs,  and  make  the  marble  breathe. 
An  idle  audience  was  not  feen  among  thjm  decree- 
ing crowns  to  dramatick  poets.  Their  apartments 
were  not  adorned  with  glaffes  of  immenfe  breadth, 
or  repeating  clocks  ;  they  had  no  rope-dancers 
amongil  them,  nor  were  burlefque  fcene^  exhibited 
on  the  ramparts  of  their  city,  &c.  hz.  But  do  you 
not  value  theie  fnining  accomplishments  a  little  too 
high  ?  Every  nation  that  has  them  not,  appears 
wretched  to  you.     Ancient  legiflators  were  of  a  very 

3  C 


382  A       SHORT      ' 

ditlerent  mind  ;  afk  Minos,  afk  Lycurgus,  and  fo 
many  others  who  prohibited  thofe  arts,  which  in- 
cbant  you,  trom  among  their  citizens  ;  afk  Plato, 
who  (i)  banlihed  poets  from  his  commonweahh.  If 
thefe  arts,  the  offspring  of  luxury,  were  abfolutely 
neceffary  to  the  glory  of  nations,  and  the  fplendour 
of  dates,  by  what  fatality  does  it  happen  that  they 
never  make  their  appearance  among  any,  but  as  the 
forerunners  of  their  fall  ?  When  Pericles  introduced 
them  into  Athens,  flavery  flood  at  the  gates  ;  and 
the  golden  age  of  Rome  was  not  that  in  which  an 
enflaved  people  afked  of  its  tyrants  fubfiflence  and 
fhows. 

We  may  fay  the  fame  of  trade.  You  have  high 
notions  of  it,  and  wife  law-givers  dreaded  it  for  their 
commonwealths ;  they  thought  that  it  would  deflroy 
that  equality  of  property,  and  aufterity  of  manners 
which  they  wifned  to  perpetuate  and  eflabhfh  among 
their  citizens  ;  they  imagined  that  as  trade  brings  in 
wealth,  wealth  fails  not  fpeedily  to  introduce  all 
thofe  vices  which  are  the  forerunners  and  caufes  of 
the  ruin  of  ftates.  And  experience  has  often  juflified 
this  way  of  reafoning.  The  Tyrian,  proud  of  his 
fleets  and  of  his  wealth,  has  not  fubfifted  fo  long  as 
the  Jew  ;  the  learned  and  polite  Athens  never  ruled 
over  auftere  Lacedemon ;  and  the  Carthaginian 
merchant  became  the  prey  of  the  Roman  citizen, 
who  excelled  in  war  and  hufbandry.  Therefore  the 
fplendour  which  commerce  gives  to  flates  does  not 
.infure  their  duration,  nor  does  it  make  them  truely 
refpedable.  Among  nations,  fir,  as  well  as  among 
private  perfong,  money  is  not  every  thing,  virtue  is 
fomeihing.  O  ye  politicians,  who  calculate  fo  ex- 
a£lly  the  produfts  of  the  arts  and  the  profits  of  trade, 
do  you  think  the  amor  patri<T,  religion,  and  morals, 
of  no  confequence  in  flates  ? 

(l)  Ban'ijhed poets  frtm  his  commontvealih.  He  d!(l  not  banifll  all  poets  Jn- 
fiifcriminatciy ;  lie  baiiHhed  none  but  fatyrical  poets,  who  tear  the  reputa- 
tion iif  their  nciglibours,  liceutious  potts  who  corz-uj^t  their  morals,  inipi«u<t 
poets  who  bring  religion  ii  to  coMtcmpt,  anil  give  falfe  notions  of  the  Deity, 
&c.  &c.  T  he  philolophical  Icpiflator  would  therefore  have  left  the  Hcnriads 
amungd  his  rcpublicahe,  iScc.  £(c. 


COMMENTARY.  383 

Upon  the  whole,  you  are  too  well  informed  not  to 
know  that  the  Hebrews  were  not  always  Grangers  to 
trade,  and  that  under  Solomon  and  fome  of  his  fuc- 
ceflbrs  they  had  a  very  beneficial  and  extenfive  one. 
The  charge  then  of  never  having  had  trade,  is  one  of 
thofe  which  you  fhould  lead  of  all  have  laid  on  us  ; 
many  nations  of  antiquity  have  had  lefs  trade,  with- 
out having  been  on  that  account  wretched  nations. 
§  2.   Superjiition  charged  on  the  Jczi's. 

Let  us  proceed  to  another  charge,  fir,  which  you 
lay  on  our  fathers,  with  as  little  juitice  as  the  former. 
If  we  are  to  believe  you, 

Text.  "  The  Jews  were  a  fuperftitious  people, 
"  and  the  mod  fuperftitious  of  all  people." 

Comment.  A  fuper/iitious  people.  What  is  it  you 
call  fuperflition,  fir?  Is  it  to  believe  in  one  God, 
and  to  worfliip  him  only  ?  Is  it  the  having  an  exter- 
nal  worfliip,  and  obferving  religioufly  fuch  rites  as 
were  eftabliflied  for  wife  reafons  ? 

The  moji  fuper ftitious  of  all  people.  Either  you 
are  abfent.  Sir,  or  you  do  not  fpeak  ferioufly.  You 
certainly  forget  the  Greeks,  with  their  abfurd  theo- 
gony,  and  their  adulterous,  ravifliing,  plundering 
Gods,  &c.  (1)  the  Egyptian  worfliipping  goats  and 
monkies,  and  offering  incenfe  to  cats  and  crocodiles, 
to  leeks  and  onions  ;  the  Romans  confulting  the 
facred  chickens  on  the  fate  of  battles,  and  confecrat- 
ing  ftatues  to  the  god  Fart,  altars  to  Terror,  and 
temples  to  Fever  ;  the  Perfian  proftrate  before  fire, 
covering  his  mouth  with  a  veil,  left  he  fliould  conta- 
minate it  with  his  breath,  and  rubbing  himfelf  over 
with  the  urine  of  an  ox,  as  a  purification  ;  the  Indian 
{landing  whole  months  on  one  leg,  his  arms  extend- 
ed, his  neck  inclined,  or  driving  large  nails  into  his 
buttocks,  and  dying  with  refignation,  holding  a  cow's 

(l)  Thf  Egyptian.  The  illuflrious  writer  lias  dec'Ted  ftrongly  agalnft  the 
fuperftitions  of  Egypt.  The  religion,  fays  he,  of  thofe  priefts  (the  E^yjnian 
pricfts)  who  ruled  the  flate,  was  worfe  than  tliat  of  the  mofl  fa\aj:e  n  tior.s. 
ft  is  well  known  that  they  worftiipped  crocodiles,  cats,  onions,  and  there  is 
rot  perhaps  now  on  the  face  of  the  earth  any  otl  er  fort  of  worihip  fo  ahfurJ, 
•except  that  of  the  great  Lama.     Edit. 


•^ 


.^4  A      S     H     O     R     T 


tail  in  his  hand.  You  forget  all  the  nations  of  anti- 
quity paying  religious  worfhip  to  wood  and  flone, 
fearching  for  future  events  in  the  courfe  of  the  hea- 
venly bodies,  and  in  the  flight  of  birds,  confulting 
foothfayers,  interrogating  the  dead,  applying  to  en- 
chanters, trembling  before  forcerers,  &c.  in  a  word 
given  up  to  the  moft  abfurd  and  extravagant  fuper- 
{titions.  And  even  if  their  fuperftiiions  had  been 
merely  ridiculous  and  abfurd,  but  they  had  many  be- 
fides  which  were  impure  and  cruel  !  How  many  na- 
tions thought  they;  honoured  their  gods  by  infamous 
debauchery  and  Ihocking  facrifices,  in  which  their 
fellow-creatures  or  their  own  children  ferved  as  vic- 
tims ?  All  thefe  ridiculous  and  abominable  fpecies  of 
fuperftition  tolerated,  authorifed  by  their  laws,  and 
which  amongfl:  them  formed  a  part  of  public  wor- 
Ihip,  v/ere  exprefsly  forbidden  to  the  Jew  by  his  law;, 
and  yet  you  charge  him  with  having  been  the  moft 
fuperfliticis  of  all  men!  If  we  judge  of  this  people 
as  we  ought  to  do,  by  its  worfhip  and  its  laws,  it  has 
been  certainly  lefs  tainted  with  fiiperilition  than  any 
other  ancient  people. 

§  3.  C barge  ofUfiiry, 
You  have  jull  now,  fir,  called  the  Jews  an   igno* 
rant  and  vulgar  nation,  ftrangers  to  trade,  you  now 
charge  them   with  a   veiy  lucrative  trade,  that  of 
money-lending. 

1'ext.  "  They  were  ufurers,  they  pradifed  ufury 
"  every  where,  according  to  the  privilege  and  blef- 
'*  fins:  of  their  lav/." 

Comment.  You  might  have  cenfured  the  Jews, 
fir,  without  attacking  their  law.  And  in  truth, 
what  is  thefe  reprehenfible  in  this  law  ? 

It  forbids  them  to  take  any  interefl  from  their  bre^- 
thren ;  iPcoramands  them  to  lend  freely  to  one  an- 
other. This  was  a  wife  law,  becaufe  if  it  had  been 
permitted  to  lend  at  int.ereft,  in  a  country  where  the 
great  refources  of -trade  were  unknown,  and  where 
the  inhabitants  lived  entirely  by  their  lands  and  their 
cattle,  the  borrower  would  foon  have  been  fwallowed 


COMMENTARY.  385 

up'by  the  rich  and  greedy  lender,  as  often  happened 
in  the  firfl  ages  of  Rome  ;  it  was  a  charitable  law  ^ 
too,  and  if  we  are  not  miftaken,  unprecedented  a-" 
mongft  ancient  nations  ;  it  recalled  to  the  minds  of 
the  Hebrews  their  common  origin,  and  obliged  them 
to  treat  one  another  as  relations  and  brethren,  and 
thus  united  them  more  firmly  together  by  the  ties  of 
gratitude  and  benevolence. 

But  the  law  permitted  them  to  lend  at  intereji  to 
firangers.  Yes,  and  in  this  it  only  gave  them  that  li- 
berty which  they  gave  to  one  another,  not  only  the 
native  to  the  ftranger,  but  the  citizen  to  his  fellow- 
citizen.  Was  it  fit  to  deprive  the  Hebrews^  of  thi* 
way  of  getting  bread,  and  oblige  them  to  lend  their 
money  freely  to  thofe  trading  nations  Vv-hich  fur- 
'  rounded  them,  and  to  run  the  rifks  of  trade  without 
Glaring  in  the  profits  of  it  t  If  you  think,  fir,  that 
Jews  could  not  lend  firangers  money  at  intereft  with- 
out tranfgrefhng  the  law  of  nature,  your  morality  is 
too  rigid.  That  of  the  great  Montefquieu,  and  even 
of  many  ofyourcafuifts  is  not  fo  fevere  ;  you  require 
a  perfection  from  the  Jews  which  even  Chrifi:ians,  ia 
moft  commercial  dates,  difpenfe  with.  Was  it  not 
fufficient  for  them  to  require  no  forbidden  or  exor- 
bitant interefl  ;  to  commit  no  frauds  or  extortions  ; 
in  a  word,  to  deviate  in  no  wile  from  the  general 
principles  of  equity  and  humanity,  which  are  found- 
ed on  the  law  of  nature  ? 

Perhaps  you  may  fay,  that  the  Jews  never  obferved 
thefe  rules.  We  allow  that  fome  of  them  have  tranf- 
greffed  them ;  but  do  their  laws  give  them  any  dif- 
penfation  here  ;  Let  the  guilty  be  punifhed,  but  let 
no  charge  lie  againft  the  nation,  or  its  laws. 

§  4.  Robbery  and  plunder  charged  on  the  yews  !y 
the  ilhtjirious  writer. 

You  think  it  not  enough,  fir,  to  accufe  us  of  ufu- 
ry,  you  call  us  befides  robbers  and  plunderers. 

Text.  "  Their  God  makes  robbers  of  this  whole 
'*'  nation  ;  he  orders  them  to  borrow  and  to  carry  a- 
**  way  all  the  vafes  of  gold  and  filver,  &C.*' 


i86  A       SHORT 

This  charge  has  been  fo  often  anfwered,  that  we 
have  realon  to  be  aftonifhed  at  finding  it  fo  often  re- 
peated in  your  works. 

Mud  we  be  obHged  to  tell  you  once  more  that  al- 
though it  were  certain,  (i)  which  is  not  the  cafe, 
that  the  Hebrews  had  borrowed  from  the  Egyptians 
vafes  of  gold  and  filver,  which  they  carried  off, 
there  was  nothing  blame-worthy  in  their  conduft. 
This  gold  and  filver  was  the  lawful  hire  of  their  long 
and  painful  fervices. 

In  vain  you  will  anfwer,  that  flaves  have  not 
a  right  to  pay  themfelves  ;  this  is  confounding  the 
rights  of  private  perfons  with  thofe  of  nations ;  pri- 
vate perfons  have  courts  of  juftice,  to  which  they 
may  complain  and  obtain  redrefs,  but  nations  have 
no  fuch  thing,   they  are  their  (2)  own  judges. 

To  robbery,  you  fay,  the  Hebrews  foon  added 
plunder. 

Text.  "  They  poflefled  themfelves  of  the  country 
"  of  Canaan,  which  did  not  belong  to  them.'* 

CoMMEN'^.  If  you  call  our  fathers  plunderers  on 
account  of  this  conqueft,  what  were  your  fathers  ?    - 

Text.  **  If  itisafked  what  right  ftrangers,  fuch 
"  as  the  Jews,  had  to  this  country,  it  is  anfwered, 
'*  that  they  had  the  right  which  God  gave  them.'* 

Comment.  Can  there  be  a  better  one?  If  the  an- 
fwer was,  that  they  had  that  right  which  force  gives, 
would  you  think  it  abetter  one  ?  In  a  word,  if  they 
held  this  country  from  God,  no  pofleffion  could  be 
more  lawful  ;  if  they  obtained  it  by  the  fword,  they 

(1)  Which  h  net  certain.  James  Capella,  and  other  Interpreters  fay,  tliat 
the  Ifraelites  had  not  hontived  but  demanded  thefe  rich  vales  as  a  free  gift. 
AviA  indeed  the  Hebrew  word  Shaal,  fignifies  at  leaft  very  frequently  to  de- 
mand, and  not  to  borroio.  Jofephus  fays  alfo,  that  the  Ecyptians  made  great 
prefcnts  to  the  Hebrews,  feme  out  of  regard,  and  feme  in  order  to  make 
tiiem  leave  the  country  fpeedily.      'ce  Chais 

We  have  thought  ourfelves  obliged  to  adopt  the  common  interpreta- 
tion.    Aut- 

(2)  Oivn  /'ii^w.  There  nny  he  a  fuller  and  more  fatisfatSory  anfwer  made 
to  this  obje(5lion.  God  is  fupreme  proprictur  of  all  things  on  c  rth,  and  he 
thoui^ht  proper  that  part  «)f  the  Egyptian  property  fliould  go  to  the  Ifraelites, 
and  for  this  purpofe  he  ^z'vttbem /.i-vour  in  the  fight  of  the  Egyptians.  The 
8^1  therefore  was  really  God's,  and  liis  people  were  in  this  cafe  merely  bis  in- 
Itruments.     Tranf. 


COMMENTARY.  387 

were  in  the  fame  cafe  with  other  nations  whom  you 
extol. 

Text.  "  The  Jews  ufed  to  fay,  we  defcend  from 
*^  Abraham^  the  Ion  of  a  potter,  Abraham  travelled 
*'  amongft  you  j  therefore  your  country  belongs  to 
"  us." 

Comment.  It  is  eafy,  but  it  is  not  fair  to  make 
your  adverfaries  reafon  in  a  ridiculous  manner. 
The  Jews,  fir,  never  reafoned  thus.  No,  but  they 
ufed  to  fay,  "  God  promifed  to  our  fathers  to  give 
"  this  country  to  their  defcendants ;  he  has  put  us 
*'  in  a  way  of  conquering  it ;  we  are  come  to  take 
"  poflelTion  of  it;  flee  or  fubmit.  If  you  refift,  we 
"  (hall  proceed  according  to  his  commiihon,  to  pun- 
"  ifli  your  crimes  and  deflroy  you.'*  We  think,  fir, 
that  this  language,  fupported  by  fo  many  miracles 
wrought  in  their  favour,  had  nothing  ridiculous  in  it. 
If  inflead  of  this  they  had  faid,  "  you  have  fruitful 
'*  lands  and  we  have  none  ;  give  your  lands  up  to  us 
"  or  you  fliall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  fvvord  ;'*  they 
would  have  faid  no  more  to  the  Canaanites  than  the 
Medes  faid  to  the  Aflyrians,  the  Perfians  to  the 
Medes,  the  Romans  to  the  Perfians,  the  Franks  and 
the  Goths  to  the  Romans,  &c.  in  (hbrt,  what  every 
conquering  nation  has  faid  to  the  conquered.  How 
comes  it  that  thefe  latter  feem  to  you  to  be  renown- 
ed warriors,  and  the  former  deteftable  plunderers  ? 
We  fee  but  one  difference  between  both  parties, 
which  is  that  fplendid  miracles  proved  that  the  Jews 
were  favoured  by  God  in  their  conquefts.  Therefore 
to  charge  them  with  plunder,  is  charging  God  him- 
felf,  or  accufing  them  in  particular  of  a  crime, which 
they  have  committed  in  common  with  almofl  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth. 

All  thefe  charges  therefore  of  vulgarity,  ignor- 
ance, fuperftition,  ufury,  plunder,  &c.  Vv'hich  you 
have  fo  often  repeated,  are  either  vain  or  falfe  ;  they 
are  alfo  only  the  forerunners  of  a  ftill  more  (hocking 
one  which  you  are  preparing  againft  us.  Happily 
for  us   the  heinoufnefs  of  it,  added  to  the  want  of 


388  A      S    H     O     R    T        - 

proofs,  will  be  fufticient  grounds  for  not  giving  it 
a  ferious  anfwer. 

S  E  V  E  N  T  li     E  X  T  R  A  C  T. 

Of  the   Jews ;  ivh&thsr  they  were,  as  Mr.  Voltaire 
affir??is,  a  nation  of  Cannibals, 

What  an  advantage  it  is,  fir,  to  poflefs  a  fpirit  of 
impartiality  and  fuperior  knowledge,  when  a  man  is 
inveitigating  antiquity  !  Such  a  man  will  make  dif- 
coveries  which  common  criticks  would  not  even  have 
fufpecled. 

Such  a  difcovery  you  have  now  made,  which  will 
be  a  laPiing  addition  to  our  treafure  of  hiftorical 
knowledge  ;  it  is  a  curious,  fmgular,  interefting  dif- 
cevery,  which  belongs  wholly  to  you,  without  being 
obliged  to  fliare  the  glory  of  it  with  any  body  elfe. 

This  raighty  difcovery,  which  fo  many  great  in- 
terpreters and  learned  commentators,  fo  many  good 
hiltorians  and  able  criticks  have  overlooked,  and 
which  was  referved  for  you,  is,  that  our  fathers  were 
a  clan  of  favages,  fuch  as  the  Cannibals,  or  worfe, 
man-eaters,  among  whom  this  horrid  food  was  com- 
mon, even  in  the  time  of  the  prophets. 

Until  your  time,  fir,  this  fad  was  unknown,  and 
you  have  now  blazoned  it  to  the  world.  This  afier- 
tion  fo  new,  not  to  fay  extraordinary,  appeared  to  us 
at  fir  ft  to  \>Q  one  of  thofe  jokes  in  which  certain  wri- 
ters indulge  themfelves,  fometimes  even  on  the  mod 
ferious  fubje^ts ;  and  the  nonfenfe  which  you  throw 
out  fo  merrily  in  the  letter  of  your  Mr.  Clocpitre, 
confirmed  us  in  this  opinioni 

But  however,  it  appears  that  your  affertion  is 
undoubtedly  ferious  ;  you  repeat  it  gravely  in  a 
work  where  you  give  yourfelf  out  for  the  friend 
and  reconciler  of  men.  From  this  work  it  has  paff- 
ed  into  others,  even  into  the  Di«5tionary  termed  Phi- 
lofophical,  and  even  into  tha  additions  to  your  wife 
and  veritable  Univerfal  liiftory. 


i"! 


COMMENTARY.  389 

If  the  novelty  of  the  difcovery  has  aflonlflied 
fome  readers,  the  fingularity  of  the  proofs,  on  which 
you  eflabhlli  it,  will  furprife  them  (till  more.  We 
fhall  now  produce  fome  of  the  mod  demonllrative 
among  them.  By  thefe  we  may  form  a  judgment  of 
the  reft. 

We  fliall  pay  no  attention  to  the  things  wliich 
you  make  your  Mr.  Clocpitre  fay.  Thefe  are  not 
arguments  to  be  canvaiTed,  but  jokes  to  be  laughed 
at.  You  are  worthy  of  a  hearing  only  when  you 
fpeak  as  an  hiftorian  and  a  philofopher, 

§    I.     Firji  proof  drazvn  from  this  ibat  many  nations 

have  fed  on  h  uman  fiefl). 
There  have  been  nations  man-eaters,  therefore 
the  Jews  were  fo.     Thus  you  reafon  ;   and  this  argu- 
ment appears  fo  convincing  to  you,  that  you  employ 
it  with  the  greateft  confidence. 

Text.     "  The  greateft  part  of  travellers  and  mif- 
fionaries,  (you  fay  in  your  additions  to  the  Uni- 
verfal  Hiftory)   agree   that    the    Brafilians,    the 
Caribs,  the   Iroquois,  the  Hurons,  &c.     devour 
their  captives ;   and  they  do   not   look  upon  this 
as  the  a£l  of  fome  individuls,  but  as  the  cuftom 
of  the   nation.     So   many  authors,  ancient  and 
modern,    have  fpoke  of  man-eaters,    that  it   is 
"  impoflible  to  doubt  their  exiftence.     I  faw  In  the 
year    1725,  at  Fontainbleau,  a  female  favage  of 
"  the  colour  of  afties  ;  I  aflied  her  if  ftie  had  ever  eat 
human  flefli,  fhe   anfwered  me  yes  very  coolly, 
and  as  if  ftie  was  replying  to  a  common  queftion. 
In  the  moft    poliflicd  ages,  the  people  of  Paris 
"  eat   the  bloody   remains   of  Marlhal     d'Ancre, 
and    the    people    of  the    Hague    devoured    the 
heart  of  the  great  penfioner  de  Wit."     (Addi- 
tions.) 

We  have  fpoke  of  love,  (you  fay  again  in  your 
Pliilofophical  Dictionary,  article  Anthropopha- 
ges)  it  is  cruel  to  go  from  people  who  kifs  one 
*'  another,  to  others  who  eat  one  another.  It  is 
"  but  too  true  that  there  have  been  man-eators  5 


(( 

iC 
(C 

c( 

C( 

cc 
(( 
ii 

C 

(C 


3  U 


390  A      S     H     O     1^     T 

''  wehaveTound  feme  In  America,  there  arc  proba- 
*'  biy  feme  flill  in  it.  The  Cyclopes  were  not  the 
*'  only  feeders  on  human  flefh  ;  the  Tintyrites,  the 
*'  GalconL^,  the  Saguntines  fed  formerly  on  the 
*'  flcfli  of  their  countrymen.  Why  fliould  not  the 
''  Jews  have  been  aian-eaters  ?  This  was  the  only 
"  thing  God's  chofen  people  wanted  to  make  them 
*'  the  mod  abominable  nation  on  earth.'*  (Philofo- 
phical  Dictionary.) 

Comment.  We  do  not  difpute  what  fo  many 
ancient  and  modern  writers  have  related.  And  fince 
the  greateft  part  of  the  firft  travellers  and  miffionaries 
all  agree  that  the  Brazilians,  Szc.  feed  on  human 
flefo,  and  that  a  female  favage  of  the  colour  of  allies, 
(i)  for  the  colour  is  a  great  matter,  anfvv^ered  you 
coolly  that  Hie  had  eat  of  it,  we  are  far  from  denying 
fuch  well-attefted  facts.  We  will  even  allow  the 
report  of  antiquity  concerning  the  Cyclopes,  who 
Sometimes  eat  human  ficfh,  &c.  S:c.  But  we  do  not 
believe  that  you'wilh  to  draw  from  thefe  examples 
any  inference  againft  our  fathers.  The  origin  qf 
ihe  Jev/s  is  well  known,  and  we  are  certain  that 
ihey  never  had  the  advantage  of  paffing  thro'  the  fa- 
vage ftate,  which  a  great  philofophcr  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  fays  is  the  ftate  of  nature.  Perhaps 
they  have  not  been  fo  well  polilhed  as  the  defcen- 
dantsofthe  Gauls,  nor  are  they  fo  phlegmatick  as 
the  Dutch  ;  but  it  would  be  hard  to  fhew  that  they 
have  been  oftener  fubjeft  to  thofe  violent  gufls  of 
pallion  than  the  nations  jufl  mentioned.  Even  thefe 
iits  of  rage,  when  fcarceiy  two  or  three  fuch  inftan- 
ces  can  be  produced  in  the  whole  hiilory  of  a  nation, 
are  not  fufHcient  grounds  for  branding  them   with 


(i)  For  the  colour  is  a  great  aaitcr.  The  colour  is  of  no  confcqtienre  Iierf, 
but  it  is  inconceivable  of  what  confequcuce  it  is  in  other  places,  according 
to  the  opinion  cf  the  jjrest  writer  \vh(;m  wc  have  the  honour  of  attacking. 
The  ciilour,  he  fays,  liiliinguil'hcs  the  feversl  races  of  men  ;  a  fiir  and  i 
brown  man  ;  a  hlack  and  a  ■whitf,  &c.  &c.  canr.ot  i>olTil>iy  Jiave  dcfc-nded 
from  the  fama  flock  ;  this  is  evident  beyond  difrute.  tice  however  what  the 
learned  author  cf  the  defence  cf  th;:  books  of  tlic  Old  TtfLnuiit  f.iys  of  it. 
Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  391 

the  name  of  Cannibals ;  and  in  fliort,  as  there  is 
always  Ibmething  fhocking  in  devouring  a  fellow- 
creature,  \ye  think  that  a  whole  people  ought  not 
to  be  charged  with  it  merely  on  conjeclure  or  in- 
ference. 

//  is  criicl  to  go  from  people  ivko  kifs  one  another,  t? 
ethers  ivho  eat  one  another.  Happy  tranfition  ! 
Poignant  contrad  !  (i)  What  a  fund  of  wit  and  de- 
cency here  1 

VJby  Jhoidd  not  the  Jeivs  have  been  men-eaters  ? 
This  zvhy  not  is  truly  convincing  and  demonflrative. 
It  is  hard  to  hold  out  againft  fuch  powerful  reafon- 
ings  as  this  ;  and  what  follows  efpecially  is  full  of 
politenefs,  phllofophical  moderation,  and  particular- 
ly of  the  love  of  truth  ;  this  is  one  of  the  noblefl 
antithefes  in  all  your  works  where  they  abound. 

The  iintyritcs,  the  Saguntlnes^  the  Gafcons,  ScCm 
There  is  we  think  feme  ditference  between  thefe  na- 
tions and  the  Hebrews^  Ocular  witnefTes,  well  in- 
formed travellers,  fay  that  the  former  of  thefe  feed 
on  human  fleili,  but  before  you,  no  writer  ever  f?.:d 
that  the  Ifraelites  generally  ufed  this  food.  Your 
authority,  (ir,  is  certainly  very  refpectable,  but  it 
is  not  altogether  cotemporary,  nor,  at  lead  when 
our  fathers  are  in  que'lion,  is  it  quite  impartial. 
Could  you  quote  no  authority  nearer  to  their  times  i 
Yes,  you  fay, 

§    2.    Second  proof.     Threatenings  cf  Mofes. 

Text.     "  Even  Mofes   threatens  the  Jews  that 

they  (liall  eat  their  children,  if  they  tranfgrefs  the 

law.'*     (Additions.) 

They  are  not  commanded  in  any  place  to  eat 
*'  human  fleHi  ;  they  are  only  threatened  with  it  ; 
'«  and  Mofes  tells  them  that  if  they  do  not  obferve 

(i)  lFh.it  a  fund  of  to'it  nnd  Jectncy  lere.  Thus  in  the  rrmaininff  part  of 
this  article,  thefc  aboniiiia  Ic  excefTcs  are  cilled  fooler'ss  Such  is  the 
li/ht  tone  whi;li  the  author  afTuaits  in  this  phiJofophical  work.  See  l\1pc- 
h'rie'dtla  ReHghn  Chrcliennt.  Mr-  Voltaire  has  declared  that  :»11  the  article* 
iit  the  Didtioiviry  are  not  hy  the  f»nic  hand  ;  perhaps  then  t'le  article  .-^z- 
tirobt>i>ha-<-s  is  not  his.  The  new  edition  will  probab'.y  clear  up  what  article! 
are  properly  hi|.     Avt, 


392  A      S    H    O     R    T      ' 

*'  his  ceremonies,  the  mothers  Ihall  cat   their  chil- 
dren."    (Philofophical  Difdonary.) 

Comment.  This  proof,  fir,  is  as  flrong  as  the 
former. 

Mofes  threatens  the  Jevjs  th{7t  they  Jhall  eat  their 
children,  &c.  Therefore  they  were  man-eaters  !  A 
confequence  nobly  deduced  !  Others  would  draw  a 
quite  contrary  conclunon  ;  but  every  man  has  his 
,  peculiar  way  of  reafoninj^,  and  the  logick  of  illuf- 
trious  writers  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  vul- 
gar. 

The  yews  are  not  commanded  in  any,  place  to  eat 
human  jlcjh.  This  confeilion  is  very  kind,  you  de- 
ferve  the  thanks  of  the  Jewifh  nation  for  it. 

"^Ihey  are  only  threatened  vjith  tf.  Since  they  are 
threatened  v/ith  it,  this  is  a  proof  that  this  fort  of 
food  was  neither  commonly  ufed  amongft  them,  nor 
agreeable.  If  a  Cannibal  was  threatened  with  be- 
ing  compelled  to  eat  human  flefii,  he  would  laugh. 
People  can  only  be  threatened  withnaufeous  detelta- 
blc  food  ;  thus  your  very  exprefiions  contradicl  your 
arguments. 

§   3.     Third  proof  drazun  from  the  promifes    of 

Ezekiel. 

But  you  fay,  fir,  that  as  they  are  threatened  in 
one  place  with  being  obliged  to  eat  human  fklh, 
fo  they  are  promifed  it,  as  an  indulgence,  in  ano- 
ther. 

Text.  "  Ezekiel  promifes  the  Jews,  by  way  of 
"  encouragement,  that  they  fliall  eat  human  flelh.'* 
(Treatife  of  Toleration.) 

"  And  (page  22d  of  the  additions  to  the  Uni- 
"  verfal  Hiftory)  the  prophet  (i)  Ezekiel  promifes 
*'  the  Hebrews  from  God,  that  if  they  defend  them- 
"  felves  well  againll  the  king  of  Perfia,  they  Ihall 
"  eat  the  ilefii  of  horfcs  and  of  the  riders." 


(t)  FzeVel firomi/.j,  &r.  !f  Mr.  Vo'taire  fpealts  feriouny,  as  there  is 
rcaion  to  htiievej  i?  it  tTi-'illl  U-  that  he  ever  read  tlie  place  of  Ezekiel  wliich 
he  quotes  fo  often  ?■  If  he  means  a  joke,  wh..rc  is  the  jcft  in  niifrciircfcutirg 
a  writer,  and  making  him  fay  what  he  never  thoujjht  ?     £dit. 


COMMENTARY.  393 

"  And  (in  the  Sermon  of  the  Rabin  Akib)  our 
*^'  enemies  accufe  us  of  having  oflPered  up  men, 
*'  and  even  of  having  eaten  them,  as  Ezekiel 
**  fays.** 

"  And  (article  Anthropophages,  Philofophical 
"  Diftionary)  it  is  certain  that  the  Jews  muft  have 
'•  ufed  human  flefli  for  food  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel, 
"  fince  he  foretells  to  them,  in  the  39th  chapter, 
"  that  if  they  defend  themfelves  well  againll  the 
"  king  of  Perfia,  they  fhall  eat  not  only  the  horfes 
'•  but  befides  the  horfemen,  and  the  other  men  of 
*'  war.     This  is  oofitive.'* 

Comment.  '1  his  at  leaft  is  often  repeated  in  your 
works.  This  proof  appears  fo  convincing  to  you, 
that  it  returns  perpetually.  Let  us,  with  your  per- 
miilion,  firj  examine  it. 

Ezekiel  promifes  the  Jews  that  they  JJ} all  eat  the  Jlejh 
vf  horfes  and  of  the  riders.  Therefore  this  flefli  was  t<i 
them  excellent  food.  Now  indeed  the  confequence 
is  ju(t,  it  is  irrefiftible  ;  it  only  remains  to  enquire 
whether  the  prophet  really  adcrts  what  the  philofo- 
pher  puts  into  his  mouth.  But  c:ui  this  be  doubted, 
or  the  lead  fufpicion  formed  of  it  ?  To  quote  falfely, 
and  afcribe  to  an  author  a  very  different  meaning 
from  his  real  one,  not  once  and  curforily,  but  in 
twenty  places,  not  only  in  jeft  but  in  earncil ;  can 
a  grave  hillorian  and  a  philofcpher  who  loves  truth, 
be  guilty  of  thefe  things  ?  This  is  playing  too  openly 
on  the  credulity  of  his  readers,  and  greatly  abufing 
the  confidence  they  place  in  him. 
.  However  the  flefh  of  horfe  and  horfeman  was  not 
a  common  food ;  as  our  philofophical  hidorian  is 
a  poet,  and  that  poets  fometimes  indulge  themfelves 
in  fidtion,  it  will  not  be  improper  to  produce  here 
the  whole  paflage  of  the  prophet.  Thus  it  runs  in 
the  tranilation. 

"  Therefore,  thou  fon  of  man,  prophefy  againft 
*^  Gog  and  fay.  Thus  faith  the  Lord  God,  behold  I 
*'  am  againd  thee  O  Gog.  And  I  will  turn  thee 
*'  back,  and  leave  but  the  flxih  part  oi  thee,  and 


C4 


ti 


394  A      s    n    O    Jl    T 

"  will  caufe  thee  to  come  up   from  the  north  parfs, 
"  and  will  bring  thee  upon  the  mountains  of  Ifra-l  : 
And  I  will  fmite  thy  bow  out  of  thy  left  hand,  and 
will  caufe  thine    arrows  to  fall  out  of  thy  right 
*'  hand.     Thou  flialt  fall  upon  the  mountains  of  If- 
rael,  thou  and  all  thy  hands,  and  the  people  that 
is  with  thee  :  I  will  give  thee  unto  the  ravenous 
birds  of  every  fort,  and  to  the  bealh  of  the  field  to 
*'  be  devoured.     Behold  it  is  come,  and  it  is  donv^, 
*'  faith  the  Lord  God,  this  is  the  day  whereof  I  have 
fpoken.     And  they  that  dv/cll  in  the  cities  of  If- 
rael  Ihall  go  forth,  and  fliall  fet  on  fire  and  burn 
the  weapons,  both  the  fliields   and  the  bucklers, 
*'  the   bows   and  the  arrows,  and  the  hand-itaves, 
"  and  the  fpears,  and  they  fhall  burn  them  with  fire 
*'  feven  years  :   So  that  they  fliall  take  no  wood  out 
"  of  the  field,   neither  cut  down  any  but  of  the  fo- 
*'  reds  ;  for  they  fliall  burn  the  weapons  with  fire, 
"  and  they  .fliall  fpoil  thofe  that  fpoiled  them,  and 
*'  rob  thofe  that  robbed  them,  faith  the  Lord  God. 
*'   And  it  fliall  come  to  pafs  in  that  day,  that  I  vvill 
*'  give    unto  Gog  a  place  there  of  graves  in  Ifracl, 
*'  the  valley  of  the  paffengers  on  the  eafl:  of  the  fea  ; 
"  and  it  fliall  fl:op  the  nofes  of  the  paifengers  ;   and 
"  there  fliall  they  bury  Gog,  and  all  his  multitude, 
"  and  they  fliall  call  it  the  valley  of  Hamon-gog. 

"  And  thou  fon  of  man,  thus  faith  the  Lord 
"  God,  fpeak  unto  every  feathered  fowl,  and  to 
"  every  beail  of  the  field,  aflTemble  yourfelves,  and 
"  come,  gather  yourfelves  on  every  fide  to  my  facri- 
'«  fice  that  I  do  facrifice  for  you,  even  a  great  facri- 
"  fice  upon  the  mountains  of  Ifracl,  that  ye  may  eat 
"  flefli,  and  drink  blood.  Ye  fliall  eat  the  flefli  of 
"  the  mighty,  and  drink  (i)  the  bbod  of  the  priu- 

(t)  TAf  blood  of  111!  pr\n!Ci  of  the  carib,  S:c.  We  Hebrews  think,  tha'  a  n-.?.n 
mi^lu  find  in  this  paffivce,  iho' jioorly  tranfla^cd,  warmth,  Rrwiig  ideas,  I'<.H 
fi-^nie^  &c.  Some  Chhftiniis  src  of  the  fame  way  of  thinicinj^f.but  thry  p.i;:y 
be  miftakcn  as  well  as  we.  Wc  read  fomcthiii^  /iniilac  to  this  in  tlie  Runnic 
poetry,  tlje  ra-jens  and  the  'iruhure  ,  fays  the  poet,  lament  tie  n:;f^l>ty  luar  -u-C  tit 
tc<Ji  prefx'r'ing  fat  ilem  a  rub  frnf. 


C  d  M  M  IE  N  T  A  R  Y.    .        595' 

««  ces  of  the  earth.  And  ye  fliall  eat  fat  'till  ye  be 
<^  full,  and  drink  blood  'till  ye  be  drunken,  of  my 
'*  facrifice  which  I  have  facrificed  for  you.  Thus  ve 
"  fhall  be  filled  (i)  at  my  table  with  horfes  and  cha- 
"  riots,  with  mighty  n^en,  and  with  all  men  of  war, 
«  faith  the  Lord  God." 

A  man,  fir,  muft  have  your  eyes  to  fee,  that  in 
this  place  Ezekiel  promifes  the  Jews  to  give  them 
human  fleih  to  eat ;  certainly  none  but  yourfelf  can 
fee  any  thing  like  this  in  it.  The  text  and  common 
fenfe  evidently  confine  this  promife  to  ravenous  ani- 
mals. 

§  4.     ^  fcruple  of  the  criiick. 
It  feems,  fir,  you  have   had   fome  ;^/;7^^  of  confcU 
ence^  for   having    extended  this  promife  even  to  our 
fathers. 

Text.  ''  It  is  generally  thought,  that  (2)  a  mif- 
"  take  has  been  committed  in  that  place  v.'here  the 
"  paflagc  of  Ezekiel  is  quoted,  which  promifes  that 
**  they  fliall  eat  the  flefli  of  the  horfe  and  the  horfe- 
*'  man.  This  promife  is  made  by  the  prophet  to  ra- 
*'   venous  animals.'*     (Treatife  of  Toleration.) 

Comment.  It  is  generally  thought.  As  if  you  was 
not  fure  of  it,  and  that  any  body  could  reafonably 
form  a  doubt  of  it. 

This  promife  is  7nade.  One  would  imaejine  that 
you  were  going  to  confefs  your  miflake  and  retract 
it ;  but  this  is  net  the  cafe,  your  fcruples  laft  but  a 
Ihort  time.     You  immediately  add, 

Text.  **  There  are  four  verfes  in  which  the  pro- 
"  phet  promifes  this  food  of  blood  and  flaughter. 
The  two  laft  may  be  applied  to  the  Jev/s  as  well 
as  to  wolves  and  vultures  ;  buu  commentators  ap- 
ply them  only  to  ravenous  animals.     (Ibid.) 

(l")  At  my  table.  We  fliall  onferve,  en  pifTant,  that  witJi  refpeft  to  thefe 
word*,  at  my  table,  the  almoner  Mr.  Clockpitrc  makes  a  niwft  judicious  re- 
flexion ;  it  is  this,  fitice  a  t^ble  is  mentioned,  thefe  vcrfcs  mud  be  applied  to 
the  Jews,  for,  fays  he,  ravenou*  animals  do  not  make  ufe  of  a  table  Thin 
kind  of  reafoning,  or  rather  plcafantry,  runs  thro'  this  whole  letter.  Tiu  y 
if  there  is  fa't  in  it,  it  ia  not  Attick  fait  !   £»'.•/. 

(a)  J5c«  uota  bens  at  ih«  end  ui"  the  firlUOitioncf  the  Traatife  on  Toltra- 
tiou. 


cc 


396  A      S    H     O     R     T 

"  If  fome  commentators  apply  thcfc  two  rerfes  to 
"  ravenous  animals,  there  are  feveral  others  who  ap- 
"  ply  them  to  the  Jews.'*  (Ibidem,  another  edi- 
tion.) I 

Comment.  The  Uuo  Iq/i  verfes  may  he  applied  to 
the  Jews^  isfc.  Certainly  they  may,  if  all  the  rules 
of  grammar  and  good  fenfe  are  violated. 

Buf  cojiinientators  apply  them  only  to  ravenous  ani- 
mah.,  Is'c.  Very  true,  commentators  make  no  other 
application  of  them.  How  then  could  you  fay  in 
the  other  edition,  if  fome  commentators  apply  thefe 
two  verfes  to  ravenous  animals,  there  are  feveral 
others  who  apply  them  to  the  Jews  ?  We  think  we 
fee  a  contradiction  here  ;  but  probably  we  are  mif- 
taken  ;  you  have  fome  method  of  reconciling  fuch 
contrary  aflertion?. 

7  here  are  feveral  others  who  apply  them  ioihe  ^JewSy 
Is'c.  If  you  know  feveral,  you  fliould  at  Icaft  have 
named  fome.  As  for  us,  we  confefs  we  know  none, 
not  one  except  you  put  yourfelf  in  the  lid  of  com- 
mentators. But  you  afiert  that  there  arc  fuch,  and 
that  is  fufficient  for  fome  readers.  How  can  we  re- 
fufe  to  believe  an  author  on  his  word  who  declares, 
that  when  he  writes,  truth  holds  the  pen  ? 

Such  are  your  flrcngefi:  proofs,  fir ;  fuch  is  the 
juftnefs  and  fclidity  of  your  reafoning  !  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent that  the  Hebrews  are  thus  clearly  convidted  of 
eating  human  ilefh,  not  only  in  common,  but  as  de- 
licious food  ?  This  difcovery  indeed  is  humbling  for 
their  defcendants !  But  what  can  they  do  ?  What  an- 
fwers  can  be  given  to  fuch  demonflrations  ? 

To  conclude.  After  having  laughed  a  little  at 
the  reafonings,  let  us  fincerely  pity  the  reafoner. 
Does  it  become,  fir,  fo  great  a  man  as  you  are,  a  phi- 
lofophcr,  the  enemy  of  prejudices,  the  firfl:  hiilorlan 
of  his  nation,  to  diflionour  his  writings  by  fuch 
grofs  calamnies  and  falfe  quotations  I  And,   to  ufe 


COMMENTARY.  397 

ypur  own  words,  ought  he  to  offer  ( i )  fuch  high  In- 
Jults  to  truth  and  to  his  readers  ? 

I'he  illuftrious  BolFuet  did  not  write  hillory  in 
^his  manner.  This  great  man  and  truly  fublime 
genius  whom  you  dare  call  a  declai?ner,  was  better 
acquainted  with  its  dignity  and  law-;.  He  well  knew 
that  altho'  it  is  the  prov'nce  of  hiftory  to  judge  na- 
tions, yet  it  has  no  right  to  calumniate  them. 

And  what  fort  of  philofophy  is  this,  which  hurri- 
ed on  hy  paffion,  and  enflaved  by  the  blindell:  preju- 
dices, indulges  itfelf  in  thefe  fallies  of  abufe,  againfl 
a  people  \vhofe  defcendants  are  already  but  too  much 
to  be  pitied  ?  Is  this  the  philofophy  of  Locke,  or 
Montefquieu  ? 

You  lay,  fomewhere,  that  there  are  hiilorical  er- 
rors and  hiftorical  lyes  ;  add  to  this,  that  there  are 
hillorical  calumnies  ;  and  judge  yourfelf  in  which 
clafs  is  to  be  ranked  this  imputation  which  we  have 
now  confuted. 

EIGHTH      EXTRACT. 

Of  circunicifion.  Mijiakes  and  contradiclions  of  the 
teamed  critick  on  the  practice  of  this  rite  amongjl  the 
Hebrews. 

Circumcifion,  fir,  is  a  fubjed  in  which  you  have 
not  had  fuccefs.     You  have  often  fpoke  of  it,  but 

3  E 

(l")  ^uih  hi^h  infults,  t5*f.  We  do  not  approve  the  ufe  of  fuch  exprefllons 
with  regard  to  Mr.  Voltaire,  altho'  h^  Jias  not  fcrupled  to  ufc  them  againfl 
the  Jtluit  Daniel-  There  is  a  certain  ftyle  and  certain  libertief  which  threat 
men  miy  alTumc,  hut  which  the  rcfl  of  nianhiuJ  muft  not  pretend  to.   Edit. 

Bccaufe  this  Jefuit  happened  t"  fay  that  Harry  IV.  embraced  the  Roman 
religion,  not  only  thro'  (late  policy,  but  thro*  convidlion,  Mr.  Voltaire  infers 
that  a  Jtfuit  cannot  be  a  faithful  hifturian.  This  may  be  true;  but  it  may 
beairu-jned  not  only  of  a  Jefuit,  but  of  every  man  who  is  not  impartial,  na 
matter  what  coat  he  wears. 

He  fays  in  another  place,  that  father  Daniel  does  not  pafs  fi*r  an  hiftorian 
of  great  depth  and  boidnefs,  but  that  he  is  accounted  a  very  faithful  ooe 
Compare  tlufe  fevcral  aflcrtions. 

He  adds,  that  father  Daniel  fometimes  falls  into  miftakes,  hut  that  no  maa 
canjulUy  call  him  a  lyar.  And  yet  we  mayjudly  fay,  that  he  o.fers  infulti 
ti>  truth  and  to  his  readers.  Wc  niayjuftly  call  him  a  wretched  hillorian. 
Dans  des  Coifeits  raifoiinablti. 

Thus  this  great  man  takes  liberties  which  he  will  grant  to  no  others,  even 
the  liberty  of  contradiiiling' himfeif,  which  ht  would  no:  fail  to  ceniuri  fc- 
verely  in  any  other.     Cbril}. 


398  A      S    H    O    R    T 

never  without  falling  into  fuch  miftakes  and  contra- 
difticns  as  aftoniOi  us  in  a  "writer  of  your  merit. 
Permit  us,  fir,  to  point  out  fome  of  them  to  you. 
We  fhall  begin  by  thofe  you  have  committed  on  the 
practice  of  this  rite  among  the  Hebrevi^s. 

We  open  the  Philofophical  Dictionary  and  wc 
read, 

Text.  *'  It  is  faid  in  the  book  of  Jofhua,  that 
"  the  Jews  were  circumcifed  in  the  -wildernefs." 
(Philofoph.  Didionary,  article  Circumcifion.) 

Comment.  Precifely  the  contrary  is  faid  ill  the 
book  of  Jofliua.  It  is. faid  exprefsly  there,  that  all 
ibe people  that  were  horn  (i)  in  the  ivildernejs  by  the 
"ivay^  as  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt^  them  they  had 
not  circumcifed  ;  that  it  was  after  the  paflage  of  Jor- 
dan, and  before  the  taking  of  Jericho,  at  Gilgal,  in 
the  land  of  promife,  that  Jofhua  had  them  circum- 
cifed, and  that  this  general  circumcifion  was  like  a 
renewal,  or  a  fecond  inftitution  of  this  rite,  which 
had  been  (2)  interrupted  in  the  wildernefs.  Is  it  pof- 
fible  that  there  fhould  be  a  palpable  contradidion 
between  what  the  book  of  Jolhua  fays,  and  what  you 
make  it  fay  ? 

But  it  is  not  fuflicient  to  make  the  book  of  Jofhua, 
in  a  quotation,  fay  quite  the  contrary  of  what  it  real- 
ly does ;  you  contradict  yourfelf  befides  in  the 
plaineft  manner. 

Text.  "  Circunrcifion,  this  feal  of  God*s.  co- 
"  venant,  was  not  prattifed  in  the  wildernefs.'* 
Toleration,  p.    18. 

Comment.     Therefore,  according  to  the  Philo- 
fophical  Dictionary,  our  fathers  were  circumcifed  in 
the  wildernefs,  and  according  to  the  Treatife  on  jTc- 
leraticn,  they  were  not  circumcifed  in  the   wilder- 
nefs.    But  this  is  not  all,  you  add, 

Text.  ""  The  poflerity  of  Abraham  was  not 
''  circumcifed  till  the  time  of  Jofliua."  (Philofoph. 
Dictionary.) 

(r)  7.7  the  nvildtrnefs.     See  Jofliua, cli.  5-  v.  5, 
(a)  Inunii^ud,  \^c.    See  Ibidem,  ver.  2,  3. 


COMMENTARY.  399 

Comment.  We  fliall  foon  fhew  you,  that  the 
poflerity  of  Abraham  was  circumcifed  before  the 
time  of  Jofliua. 

But  in  the  mean  while,  let  us  obferve  here,  that 
■  the  time  of  Jofhua  does  not  begin  until  after  the  de-  " 
parture  from    the  wildernefs  ;   and  that  in  the  time 
of  Jofhua,    Abraham's  poflerity  was   circumcifed  in 
the  land  of  promife. 

Therefore,  according  to  the  fame  article  of  the 
Philofophical  Didionary,  Abraham's  pofterity  was 
circumcifed,  a  few  lines  higher,  in  the  zuildernefs,  and 
a  few  lines  lower,  in  the  land  of  promife  ;  fome  lines 
higher,  before  Jofhua^  and  fome  lines  lower,  in  the 
time  of  yojhua.       What  a  feries  of  contradifrlons  ! 

You  fay  fomewhere,  that  contradiclories  may  of- 
ten be  reconciled  ;  reconcile  thefe  if  you  can. 

Text.  "  The  Jews  who  refided  two  hundred 
"  and  fifty  years  in  Egypt,  fay  that  they  did  not 
*'  get  themfelves  circumcifed  during  that  fpace  of 
"  time."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  The  Jews  never  faid  or  could  fay 
fuch  a  thing. 

And  truly  as  Mofes,  Aaron,  and  all  the  Jews  who 
died  in  the  wildernefs,  had  been  circumcifed,  and  as 
this  was  not  done  in  the  wildernefs  according  to  the 
teflimony  of  fcripture,  and  your  own  aflertions,  we 
pray  you,  fir,  to  inform  us  where  this  was  done  ? 

We  fliall  add,  that  if  the  Jews  neglected  circum- 
cifion  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  which  was 
the  fpace  of  their  refidence  in  Egypt,  this  is  a  itror.g 
proof  that  this  rite  was  not  vet  ufed  among:  the  E- 
gyptians  ;  and  that  the  forefkin  was  not,  as  you  fav, 
an  object  of  horror  and  contempt  to  them. 

It  is  furprifmg  that  you  do  not  perceive  the  incon- 
fillency  of  your  two  pofitions  ;  you  maintain  on  one 
«  hand,  that  the  Jews  did  not  get  themlelves  circum- 
cifed during  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  in  which 
they  refided  in  Egypt ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  you 
aflirm,  that  they  borrowed   the   rite  of  circumcifion 


4:0  A      S    H    O     R    T 

from  the  Egyptians  ;  this  is  uniting   t\«ro  opinions, 
the  one  of  which  evidently  fubverts  the  other. 

But  here  follows  fomething  more  extraordinary. 

Text.     "  The  circumcifion  of  Abraham  was  not 

followed  by  that  of  others,  and  his  poderiiy  was 

not  circumcifed  until  the  time  of  Joilivia."     (Ibi- 
dem.) 

Comment.  The  circumct/ton  of  Alrahail^  kvii-s  noi 
followed  by  that  cf  others.  Do  you  not  know,  thdn, 
fir,  either  the  paffages  of  Genefis,  in  which  it  is  Iki^ 
that  Iflhmael  and  Ifaac  (i)  were  circumcJ'ed  ;  or 
the  difcourfe  of  Jacob's  children  to  the  father  (2.) 
of  young  Sichem  ?  Wc  cannot  do  this  thir,g^  fav  t'rey 
to  him,  to  give  our  Jijler  to  one  that  is  nncircuincifed. 
For  that  ivere  a  rcpro.ch  unto  us  ;  but  in  this  ivill  we 
confent  unto  yoii^  if  ye  will  be  as  we  be,  that  evef-y  ivdid 
of  you  bo  circumcifed,  then  will  we  give  our  dau/httrs 
unto  you,  and  we  will  take  your  daughters  to  us,  end  wt 
will  dwell  with  you  and  we  will  become  one  people. 
Does  not  this  difcourfe  prove  clearly,  that  the  jjofle- 
rity  of  Abraham  not  only  kept  up  the  pratlice  of  cir- 
cumcifion, but  that  they  looked  upon  it  as  of  indif- 
penfible  obligation,  and  as  a  chara6ler  which  diftin- 
guiflied  them  from  the  other  people  of  Paleftine  ^. 

To  thefe  texts  you  might  have  added  that  of  Ex- 
odus, where  it  is  related  that  circumcifion  was  giv- 
en to  (3)  the  fon  of  Mofes  when  his  father  was  on 
his  journey  returning  into  Egypt ;  and  that  of  Jo- 
ihua,  where  it  is  faid  exprefsly,  as  we  have  already 
obferved,  that  the  Ifraelites  who  died  in  the  wilder- 
nefs,  (confequently  before  the  circumcifion  of  Gilgal, 
<rnd  the  time  of  joihua,)  (4)  had  all  been  circum- 
cifed. 

The  Ifraelites  therefore  were  circumcifed  when 
they  went  into  Egypt,  and  they  went  out  of  it  in 
like  manner.     Thus  it  appears  that  the   circumcifion 

(I)  Were  clramciftd.    Genefis,  ch.  17  v.  2(^.  ch.  41.  v.  4      Aut.. 
(2)    Ofyoiiii^  S'n-hcm.      Gf  itelis,  ch.  24.  v.    I4.      /^a/. 
(H;    'The    hn 'f  Mofff.    Exodu.',  ch.    4,  v.  25.     Aiii.- 
()*)  Sec  Jolhiia,    ch.    5. 


«c 

(C 


COMMENTARY.  401 

cf  Abraham  was  not  followed  by  that  of  others,  and 
that  his  pojierity  was  not  circumcifed  until  the  time  of 
yodoua  / 

Tii^tf.  "  (i)  The  book  of  Jofliua,  fays ;  And  the 
**  Lord  faid  unto  yofhiia,  this  day  have  I  rolled  away 
*'  the  reproach  of  Egypt  from  off  you.  Now  what 
eould  be  this  reproach  to  a  people  who  lived. 
aiTtongfl:  the  Egyptians,  Phenicians,  and  Arabi- 
ans, except  it  was  fomething  that  rendered  them 
'•  contemptible  to  thefe  three  nations  ?  How  could  thii 
"  reproach  be  taken  from 'ihem  ?  By  taken  off  a  lit- 
"  tie  of  the  forelkin.  Is  not  this  the  natural  mean^ 
"  ing  of  this  paffage  r" 

Comment,  ill,  You  cannot  fay  that  the  forefkin 
was  a  reproach  againft  the  Jews  among  the  Egyptians 
and  Arabians,  except  you  fuppofe  that  thefe  two 
nations  pradtifed  circumcifion  before  the  Hebrews  ; 
now  of  this  you  produce  no  proof.  Surely,  fir,  to 
fuppofe  this,  is  to  beg  the  queftion, 

2dly.  You  fuppofe  again  that  clrcumclfion  was 
pradifed  among  the  Phenicians  in  the  time  of  Jo- 
fhua  ;  but  our  facred  writers  (who  probably  knew 
them)  reptefent  them  to  us  every  where,  as  a  people 
uncircumcifed  at  all  times.  Have  you  any  proofs, 
fir,  of  the  contrary  ?  You  will  now  furely  place  in 
competition  the  accounts  of  thofe  writers,  who  bor- 
dered on  Phenicia,  and  mufli  have  had  certain  infor- 
mation of  fuch  a  thing,  with  the  teftimony  of  Hero  - 
dotus,  a  ftranger,  who  lived  long  fince  their  time, 
and  who,  according  to  yourfelf,  when  he  relates 
what  the  barbarous  nations  among  whom  he  travel- 
led have  told  him,   talks  nonfenfe. 

3d!y.  In  the  paflage  which  you  quote,  it  is  faid, 
/  have  rolled  off  the  reproach  of  Egypt  from  off  you. 
You  affert  that  thefe  words  fignify,  /  have  delivered 
you  from  what  rendered  you  contemptible  among  the 
Egyptians.     But  is  this  the  true  fcnfe  of  this  paffage  ? 


(r)      Tbe  book  of  Jojhua Joys,     Jofliua,  ch.  J.  v.  9. 


402  A      S    H     O     R    T 

And  might  wfe  not  give  it  a  difierent  one  with  equal 
if  not  more  reafon  ? 

AVhat  would  hinder  us  from  fuppofmg,  as  fome 
commentators  have  done,  that  the  reproach  of  Egypt, . 
is  nothing  elfe  but  the  flavery  of  Egypt,  fo  that  God 
might  be  fuppofed  to  fay  to  the  Jews,  "  this  charac- 
"  ter,  which  you  have  now  received  in  your  flefh, 
*'  makes  you  this  day  my  people  in  an  efpecial  man- 
"  ner,  a  nation  independent  of  every  one  but  me, 
"  and  puts  the  lail  feal  to  your  dehverance."  Or 
flili  better,  perhaps  //j/j  r.'/>r(?^7<r/^  is  the  forefkin  itfelf, 
which  degraded  the  Ifraelites  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord, 
by  confounding  them  with  the  (i)  uncircunicifed  and 
profane  Egyptians.  Thefe  fenfes,  fir,  are  full  as  good 
us  yours,  aitho'  you  boafl  of  it  as  of  a  great  difco- 
very. 

h  not  this,  you  fay,  the  natural  meaning  of  this 
pajfage  ?  No,  fir,  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  ;  for  to 
whom  would  this  difcourfe  be  addrefied  ?  To  the 
Ifraelites,  circumcifed  at  Gilgal  ?  They  had  never 
lived  in  Egypt.  Or  to  their  fathers  ?  They  had  been 
circumciied  there  ;  the  fcripture  fays  it  cxprefsly. 
Therefore  the  forefkin  never  could  have  been  a  re- 
proach to  either  of  thefe  among  the  Egyptians  -y  and 
if  it  had  been  the  caufe  of  fliame  to  their  anceftors, 
what  could  have  prevented  them  from  being  circum- 
cifed ?  God  had  ordered  them  to  be  fo,  and  the 
Egyptians  did  not  forbid  them.  Would  they  have 
willingly  continued  in  a  ftate  of  reproach,  which  they 
ir.ight  fo  eafily  have  avoided  ? 

N  I  K  T  H     E  X  T  R  A  C  T. 

Of  Circumcijion.     Whether  the  Jews  borrowed  cir cum- 
cificnfrGm  the  Egyptians. 
Firil  v/e  agree  in  this,    fjr,    that     this    queftion 
does  not  affcd  the  main  point  of    revelation  j    for, 

(l)  Unciicumcije/i  and  profane.  If  this  is  the  true  fenfc  of  this  paflatre,  as 
ylainly  appears,  tl.is  is  a  proof  tl.at  then  the  Egyptians,  at  leall  the  bulk 
of  the  natiiin,  wuc  yet  uncircunjcifed.     Ed\t. 


COMMENTARY-  403 

(i)  as  you  well  obferve,  "  altho'  It  were  true  that  this 
"  ritewas  more  ancient  than  the  Jewifli  nation,  yet 
"  God  might  have  fandtified  it ;  he  may  according 
"  to  his  good  pleafure,  annex  his  graces  to  thole 
"  figns  which  he  deigns  to  chufe."  According  then 
to  your  own  confeflion  this  is  merely  a  critical  quef- 
tion. 

And  accordingly  learned  men  have  been  much  dl- 
.  vided  on  this  fubjedl.  Some,  and  this  is  the  opi- 
nion of  the  Jews,  Arabians,  and  of  molt  Chriltians, 
hold  that  Abraham  and  his  family  ufed  circumcifion 
before  many  other  people  ;  others,  and  this  is  the 
opinion  of  jfome  learned  chriftians,  Marfham,  Le 
Clerc,  &c.  beheve  it  to  be  of  Egyptian  extracti- 
on. 

You  fail  not  to  adopt  this  latter  opinion,  as  It 
feems  lefs  favourable  to  the  Jews,  and  more  confo- 
nant  to  your  prejudices  againfl:  them.  But  permit 
us  to  obferve  to  you,  fir,  that  you  are  very  far  from 
defending  it  as  ably  as  the  perfons  we  have  menti- 
oned. It  looks  falfe  or  at  lead  uncertain  in  their 
hands,  but  it  acquires  a  ftronger  tincture  of  thefe 
qualities  in  yours.  So  weak  are  your  arguments  on 
this  opinion. 

§  I.  A  degree  of  hnprohahility  tvhicb  the  learn- 
ed critick  adds  to  the  op'mion    zubich  he  rnaintains. 

If,  as  you  aflfert,  fir,  the  Hebrews  borrowed  the 
rite  of  circumcifion  from  the  Egyptians,  they  would 
certainly  have  ufed  it  in  Egypt.  This  Le  Clerc  and 
Marfham  held  agreeably  to  our  facred  writings.  But 
you,  fir,  who  do  not  always  repofe  a  confidence  in 
thefe  writings,  know  not  where  or  when  the  Jews 
began  to  ufe  this  rite  ;  you  vary  with  and  contradidi: 
yourfelf  in  this  refpeft,  in  the  mofi:  palpable  manner  ; 
all  that  you  know,  and  all  that  you  aflert  againfl  the 
teflimony  of  our  facred  writings  and  againft  the  opini- 
ons of  thofe  learned  men  whofe  decilion  you  adopt, 
amounts  to  this, 

(j)  Sec  Philofophical  Dictionary.     Aui. 


^04  .A      SHORT 

Text.  "  The  Jews  did  not  receive  circumciApn  ^n 
"  Kgypt,"     (Philofoph.  Didionary.) 

CoTviMENT.  Therefore  the  Jews,  who  according 
to  you  borrowed  circumcifion  from  the  Egyptians, 
did  not  borrow  it  during  their  long  refidence  in 
Egypt  !  They  lived  uncircumcifed  for  two  hundred 
and  five  years  among  the  Egyptians  who  were  cir- 
cumcifed,  and  they  did  not  adopt  this  Egyptian  rite 
until  forty  years  after  their  leaving  Egypt,  when 
they  were  no  longer  dependants  on  the  Egyptian^, 
and  had  no  intercourfe  with  them  ! 

Text.  '*  The  forefkin  was  a  fubject  of  fcaQ- 
"  dal  among  the  Egyptians.'*     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  The  Hebrews  therefore,  who  were 
flaves  in  Egypt,  had  a  ilrong  incitement  to  follo)v 
the  example  of  their  mafters  j  and  yet,  according 
to  you,  they  did  not  imitate  them  ;  they  lived  two 
hundred  and  five  years  in  the  fcandal  of  the  fore- 
fkin, and  did  not  get  themfelves  circumcifed  until 
the  forelkin  was  no  longer  a  fubjed  of  fcandal  ! 
Can  you,  who  iind  fo  many  things  above  your  con- 
ception, conceive  this,    fir  ? 

But,  perhaps,  fir,  every  one  will  not  conceive  it 
in  like  manner  ;  fome  people  will  think  that  this  ob- 
liinacy  of  the  Hebrews  to  remain  two  hundred  and 
five  years  in  a  fcandal  which  they  could  avoid,  is 
not  very  probable,  and  that  this  is  one  degree  more 
of  improbability  added  to  the  opinion  of  Ce  Cler-c 
and  Mariham,  which  was  already  not  very  proba- 
ble. 

§   2.     He  contradids  one  of  ihe  proofs  n Hedged  m 
favour  of  that  opinion  zvhich  he  fupports. 

Text.  "  Is  it  probable  that  the  powerful  and 
ancient  Egyptian  people  borrowed  this  cuilom 
from   a  little  nation  which  they  detefted  ?    (Ibi- 

"  dem) 

Comment.     This  argument  may  have  weight  in 

Le  Clerc  and   Mariham,  Sec.  but  it  lofes  it  in  fome 


cc 


COMMENTARY.  405 

degree  in  your  writings.     You  do  not  every  where 
fpeak  fo  advantageoufly  of   the  Egyptians.      You. 
fcem  to  have  forgot  this,  fir  ;  we  mull  remind  you 
of  it.     This  is   what  you  fay  of    them  ; 

Text.  *'  The  Egyptians  have  been  much  ex- 
tolled ;  I  fcarcely  know  a  more  contemptible  pe6- 
ple.**  (Philofoph.  Diet,  article  Apis.) 
"  The  Egyptians,  a  people  at  all  times  contemp- 
tible." (Treatife  on  toleration.) 
Comment.  This  is  not  the  way  to  perfuade 
us,  fir,  to  think  that  the  Jews  borrowed  the  rite  of 
circumcifion  from  the  Egyptians.  We  generally  imi- 
tate a  nation  which  we  refpect,  not  a  contemptible 
one.  You  fee,  fir,  that  this  contradidioa  dellroys 
your  argument. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  cannot  but  admire  here  with 
what  eafe  your  imagination  ferves  you  according  to 
your  wifh,  and  how  it  can  give  to  objects  thofe  co- 
lours   which  you  want  for  that  inltant. 

If  it  is  faid  that  our  fathers  may  have  got  fome  tinc- 
ture of  the  arts  and  fciences,  as  they  were  brought 
up  in  the  Egyptian  fchools,  then  immediately  the 
Egyptians  are  the  mod  contemptible  people,  at  all' 
times  a  contemptible  people. 

But  if  you  want  to  fhew  that  the  Egyptians  bor- 
rowed nothing  from  the  Hebrews,  then  the  Egyp- 
tians are  a  great  people,  an  ancient  and  pow- 
rcful  nation,  and  Egypt  a  flouriilnng  kingdom 
for  many  ages  (i)  before  Abraham  went  into  it," 
&c. 

Yet,  fir,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how  thefe  afifer- 
tions  can  all  together  be  true.  If  the  Egyptians  were 
an  ancient  and  powerful  nation,  they  were  not  a  con* 
temptible  people  ;  or  if  they  were  a  people  at  all  times 
contemptible,  they  never  were  a  powerful  nation,  or,'. 

(1)  Be/ore  /Abraham  tBent  inti  it.  See  Philofophical  J)i(*V<'"9i"y,  ac  I 
Fhilofophy  of  Hiilwryt  article*  Abriham,  CJ*cuniciIion ,  iijj'yptiaat,  .Ike, 
Aft. 


4o6  A      S    H    O    R    T 

a  flourifhing  kingdom.     Contradiclioii  will  not  cflecl: 
conviction. 

§   3.  Hefupports  hiwfelf  with  the  authority  of  HerO' 
dotus^  and  overturns  it. 

After  the  example  of  Le  Clerc  and  Marfliam,  he. 
you  fupport  your  opinion  with  the  authority  of  He- 
rodotus, a  Pagan  hilliorian,  a  Greek,  not  quite  a 
cotemporary  writer,  but  who  wrote  however  about 
one  thoufand  four  hundr(!d  years  after  circumcifion 
was  appointed  among  the  Hebrev/s,  about  one  thou- 
fand years  after  Moles..  This  authority,  as  we  fee, 
would  be  of  weight  ;  but  unfortunately  you  do  not 
a<St  as  Le  Clerc  and  Marfliam  have  done,  for  you 
do  every  thing  in  your  power  to  weaken  this  au- 
thority.      This  Greek  is,    according  to  you, 

Text  *'  A  ftory-teller,  a  relater  of  ridiculous 
"  fables,  only  fit  to  amufe  children  and  be  compi- 
"  led  by  rhetoricians."     (Philof.  Did.) 

Comment.  Such,  fir,  is  the  exaft  and  veritable 
hillorian,  (this  name  you  give  him  thro*  derifion) 
whom  you  oppofe  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  book  of 
Jofliua,  and  the  whole  tradition  of  the  Jews,  Ara- 
bians, and  Chriftians.  Such  you  tell  us,  is  the  value 
of  his  tedimony. 

But  you  add,  "  altho'  Herodotus  fometimes  tells 
''  hear-fay  ftories,  yet,'* 

Text.  "  When  he  fpeaks  of  what  he  has  feen, 
*'  of  the  cuftoms  of  natioiis  Vv'hich  he  has  examined, 
"  concerning  antiquities  which  he  has  looked  into, 
*'  he  fpeaks  rationally.'* 

Comment.  Very  well,  fir,  but  had  Herodo- 
tus feen  the  appointment  of  circumcifion  among 
the   Hebrews,    or  even  among  the  Egyptians  ! 

No,  you  anfwer,  but  he  had  confulted.  Whom  ? 
The  Egyptians.  We  may  protell  againft  the  tciti- 
niony  of  this  people,  who  is  foolilhly  infatuated  with 
its  chimerical  antiquities,  and  ridiculoufly  jealous 
of  the  charadler  of   havinfj  been  the  inflrudors  of 


COMMENTARY.. 


407 


other   nations,  and   of  having  learned   (i)   nothing 
from  them.     Wa^  it  their  priells  ?  You    adert  that 
every  thing  he  heard  from  the  Egyptian  prleihs  (2)  is 
.  falfe. 

Serioufly,    fir,  what   credit  can  we  give   to  a  fo- 
reign writer,  of  much  later  date,  who  produces  none 
but  intereded  vvitneffcs,  and  of  whom    you  ftrivc  fo 
hard  to  give  us  (3)  a  bad  opinion  ? 

§  4.  Hs  gives  a  bad  tranjlatlon  of  that  p^J^-'^s  of 
Herodotus  ivhich  be  quotes. 

Let  us  nov/  fee  how  you  tranil  ite  Herodotus,  af- 
ter having  fpoke  of  him  in  terms  fo  favourable,  and 
fo  proper  to  sain  him  the  confidence  of  your  readers. 
In  order  to  fhew  you  at  one  glance  how  faithful  and 
exaQ:  your  tranflation  is,  we  (hall  place  on  one  fide 
ot  the  page  what  Herodotus  fays,  and  on  the  other 
what  you  make  him  fay. 


What  Herodotus  fays. 

The  inhabitants  of  Col- 
chis feem  to  me  of  Egyp- 
tian extradlion  ;  which  I 
col  kef  ed  rather  from  my 
own  experience, .  than  the 
information  of  others.  And 
tho'  upon  inquiry  I  found 
more  evident  marks  of  this 
relation  among  the  Colchi- 
ans  than  in  Egypt  ;  yet  the 
Egyptians  fay,  they  be- 
lieve them  to  be  defcend- 
ed  from  a  part  of  the  ar- 
my of  Sefoilris  j  which  I 


What  Mr.  Voltaire 
makes  him  fay. 

It  feems  that  the  inha- 
bitants of  Colchis  came 
originally  from  Egypt  :  / 
judge  of  this  from  myfjlf 
rather  than  from  bear- fay. 
For  I  found  that  when  a 
perfon  was  interrogated  at 
Colchis  about  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  thefe  were  bet- 
ter remembered  at  Colchis 


than  the  ancient  cujlonu 
Colchis  in  Egypt » 


oj 


(l)   Nothing  from  them.      Stt  Dfenfe  Jts  I'votrs  de  V Ancien    7cll,irvfnt,'iX\  SX- 
cellent  work.     We  requsfl:  of  Mr  Votairc  to  refrlve  to    read  it.     Aut. 
(i)  Is  falfe-       See  tlie   Mdanges,  vol.   lid.  ci-  4  7-      Aut. 
(3)      A  ijJ  oJ)'iniQ;t.     ^ec  St/^ra.      dint. 


40$ 


SHORT 


What  Herodotus  fays. 

think    probable,    becaufe 
their  complexion  is  fwar- 
thy,  and    their  hair  fri-z- 
l:d^  tho'  no  certain  proof ; 
for  others  are  fo  likewife. 
But   that   which    weighs 
mofl  with  me  is,  that  the 
Colchians,  Egyptians  and 
Ethiopians,  are  the  only 
nations     of    the    world, 
who  from  time  immemo- 
rial have  been  circumcif- 
ed.    For  the  Phcenicians, 
and  thofeSyrians  that  inha- 
bit    Pale/cine^      acknow- 
ledge    they   received   cir- 
cumcifion  from  the  Egyp- 
tians.    i\s  the  other  Syri- 
ans, who  poffefs  the  coun- 
tries adjacent  to  the  river 
Thermodon   and  Parihe- 
nion,    with    their    neigh- 
bours the  Macronians,f(??g- 
fefs  they  very  lately  learn- 
ed the  fame  cufiomfrom  the 
Colchians.     And  thefe  are 
the  only  nations  that  are 
circumcifed,   and  imitate 
the  Egyptians  in  the   ufe 
of  this   ceremony.      But 
whether   the    Ethiopians 
had  this  ufage  from    the 
Egyptians,    or   thefe,  on 
the   contrary,    from    the 
Ethiopians,  is  a  thing  too 
ancient  and  obfcure    lor 
me  to  determine.     Yet  I 


What   Mr.  Voltaire 
makes  him  fay. 

Thefe  inhabitants  of  the 
borders  of  the  Pontus  Euxi- 
niis  pretended  to  be  a  colo- 
ny fettled  by  Sefoflris. 
For  my  part  I  gueiled  it, 
not  only  becaufe  they  are 
fvvarthy  and  have  their 
hair  curled,  but  becaufe 
the  people  of  Colchis,  E- 
gypt,  and  Ethiopia  are  the 
only  people  on  earth,  who 
have  pradifed  circumcifi- 
on  at  all  times.  For  the 
Phenicians  and  thofe  of 
Paleftine  confefs  that  they 
have  taken  circumcifion 
from  the  Egyptians.  The 
Syrians,  who  live  at  this 
time  on  the  banks  of 
Thermodon  and  Pathenia^ 
and  the  Macrons  their 
neighbours,  conf.fs  that 
they  have  lately  conformed 
to  this  Egyptian  cvftom. 
By  this  chifly  they  are 
knozun  to  be  eriginally  E^ 
gyptians. 

With  regard  to  Ethi- 
opia and  Egypt,  as  this 
ceremony  is  very  ancient 
among  thefe  two  nations, 
I  cannot  tell  which  of  the 
two  borrowed  circumcifi- 
on frora  the  other  ;  how- 


COMMENTARY, 

Wliat  Herodotus  fays. 


40$ 

What   Mr.  Voltaire 
makes  him  fay. 


am  inclined  to  believe 
that  the  Ethiopians  took 
up  this  cuftom  hy  con-ver- 
ftng  luith  the  Egyptians  ; 
becaufd  we  fee  that  none 
of  thofc  Phoenicians,  who 
have  any  commerce  with 
the  Grecians,  continue  to 
imitate  the  Egyptians  in 
this  ufa^e,  of  circumcif-j  with  the  Greeks, 
ing  their  children. 

Lictlebury's      Herod. 
Vol.   I.  p.    193. 


ever  it  is  probable  that  the 
Ethiopians  got  it  from  the 
Egyptians,  as  on  the  con- 
trarv  the  Phenicians  have 
aboli  bed  the  cuflom  of 
ciicumc'fing  their  mw" 
born  infant :>  fincethey  have 
had   ai  y    communication 


Comment.  If  it  is  proper  to  be  exa£l  and  faith- 
ful in  the  tranflation  of  any  pafTage,  it  is  more  efpe- 
cially  fo  when  we  appeal  to  it  as  an  authority,  and 
pretend  to  draw  confequences  from  it.  Do  you 
think,  fir,  that  you  have  rendered  the  text  ofHero- 
.dotus  faithfully,  and  that  you  have  not  made  him 
fay  more  than  what  he  fays  ?  Let  us  enter  into  par- 
ticulars. 

1  judge  of  this  from  my fcf  rather  than  from  hear  fay. 
The  meaning  of  Herodotus  is,  that  by  the  (i)  fea- 
tures of  refemblance  which  he  perceived  between 
the  inhabitants  of  Colchis  and  the  Egyptians,  he 
conjeftured  that  the  people  of  Colchis  came  original- 
ly from  Egypt,  and  that  this  thought  arofe  in  him 
before  any  one  had  fpoke  to  him  of  their  Egyptian 
extraction.  This  is  evidently  the  fcnfe  of  the  words 
7rpoT5;;ov  7)fltx«T«r,  but  either  you  have  not  perceived  this 
fenfe,  or  you  did  not  think  proper  to  give  it.  This  is 
already  one  inftance  of  your  want  of  exaClnefiJ.  Here 
foll6v/s  fomethinQ-  ftill  better. 

(l)  Peatures  of  refembhnct ■  Thefe  features  were  not  confneJ  to  their 
fwarchy  complexions  and  curljj  hair.  Hv'rodotui  ir.entinns  fever^i  <)thtrt»» 
fuch  as  ti>e  lauguuge,  the  manners,  the  method  i-f  working  flax,     £rf.V, 


410  A       S     H     O     R     T 

At  Colchis  they  remember  much  better  the  ancient 
EgyptiariS,  than  the  ancient  cii/ioms  of  Colchis  luere 
remembered  in  Egypt.  Where  did  you  find  thefe 
ancient  Egyptians,  fir,  and  the  ancient  cuftonis 
of  Colchis  ?  The  text  of  Herodotus  mentions  nei- 
ther. 

And  what  do  you  mean  by  your  ancient  cudoms 
of  Colchis  ?  The  ancient  cudoms  of  Colchis,  which, 
according  to  your  author,  was  an  Egyptian  colony, 
mull  have  been  the  cuftoms  of  Egypt.  What,  fir, 
did  they  not  remember  in  Egypt  the  cuftoms  of  E- 
gypt  ?  They  did  not  remember  in  Egypt,  in  the 
time  of  Herodotus,  circumcifion,  which  the  people 
of  Colchis  had  taken  from  Egypt,  and  which  the 
Egyptians  ufed  in  the  time  of  Elerodotus  ?  2\las,  fir, 
how  you  make  Herodotus  reafon  ! 

Your  ancient  cufloms  of  Colchis  therefore  are 
Hot  only  a  want  of  exaQnefs,  but  a  falfe  fenfe  j 
they  are,  we  afK  your  pardon,  a  vacuum  of  fenfe, 
or  to  ufe  a  firong  Englilh  phrafe,  as  you  admire  the 
Englifli,  they  are  nonfenfe. 

2  hefe  inhabitants  of  the  borders  of  the  Pont  us  Euxi- 
nus  prete?ided  to  be  a  colony  fettled  by  Sefofiris.  The 
inhabitants  of  the  borders  of  the  Pontus  Euxinus,  is 
an  elegant  periphrahs  to  denote  the  Colchi  ;  but 
obferve,  fir,  that  you  afcribe  to  the  Colchi  what 
your  author  fays  of  the  Egyptians.  In  Herodotus, 
it  is  the  Egyptians  who  pretend  that  the  Colehi 
were  a  colony  fettled  by  Sefofiris  ;  there  is  fome 
difference  in  this,  efpeciaily  if  we  take  into  confidera- 
tion  the  vanity  of  the  Egyptians. 

I  gueffcd  it,  not  only  becaife  they  are  fwarthy  and 
have  their  hair  curled,  but  becaufe  the  people  of  Colchi, 
Egypt,  kc.  Here,  fir,  Herodotus  obferves  that  the 
fwarthy  complexion  of  the  Colchi  and  their  curled 
hfiir,  do  not  prove  that  they  were  of  Egyptian  ex- 
iradion,     (i)  This  proves  nothing  he   fays.     Why 

(i)    7'>i.i  proves  notlinv.     It  muft  then  be  for  want  of  thoiiglit,  or  with  in- 
teut  of  iur:)i:)g  tkroJotas  into  ridicule,  that  the  illuilrious  autiior  allures 


COMMENTARY.  41  x 

do  you  fupprefs  this  obfervation  ;  it  is  curious  and 
intereilin;^  ;  it  refults  from  this  that  Herodotus  did 
not  I'ufpcct  what  you  hold  for  certain,  that  the  re- 
•femblancc  of  hair  and  complexion  or  the  difference 
of  them  is  a  fuHicient  proof  thcit  men  are  of  the  fame 
or  of  a  different  race.  This  is  a  great  and  mighty 
difcovery  in  natural  hiftory,  for  which  we  are  in- 
debted to  you  J  altho*  this  obfervation,  v/hich  you 
fupprefs,  may  have  been  difa*reeable  to  you,  fir, 
yet  it  might  pleafe  others,  and  you  ought  not  to 
have  concealed  it  from  them. 

The  Phenicians  and  thofc  of  Palefilne.  The  Greek 
fays,  and  the  Syrians  of  Palejline.  Thus  Herodotu;; 
defcribes  the  Jews,  with  whofe  name  he  was  fcarcely 
acquainted  %.  this  fliews  what  a  clear  knowledge  he 
had  of  the  origin  of  their  cufloms  ! 

Confefs  that  they  have  taken  cireumcifion  from  the 
Egyptians.  How  did  Herodotus  know  this  ?  Had 
he  confulted  them  on  this  fubje«Sl  ?  Does  he  fay 
that  he  had  this  confeflion  from  themfelves  ?  No, 
fir,  and  therefore  we  may  juftly  except  againll 
it. 

The  Syrians  ivho  live  at  this  iime  on  the  banlis  cf 
Thermo  Jon  and  Pathenia.  It  (hould  be  Parthenia  ; 
this  is  a  typo^^raphical  error,  which  ought  to  be 
correfted  in  the  new  edition  ;  we  inform  you  of  it, 
fir,  for  it  has  pafled  from  your  Philofophical  Dic- 
tionary into  the  book  called  Raifon  par  Alphabet. 

Confefs  that  they  have  lately  conformed  to  this  Egyp- 
tian cu/hin.  The  Greek  fays,  this  cuffom  of  the 
Colchi  ;  thus  in  order  to  eltabliih  your  Egyptian 
notions,  inftead  of  the  Colchi  you  put  down  Egypt. 
It  is  impoflible  to  tranflate  an  author  more  exactly  ; 
you  may  hereafter  be  a  pattern  to  faithful  tranlla- 
tors ! 

If  thcfe  Syrians  of  Thermodon  and  Parthcnius 
were  really  Syrians,  who   had  been  removed  out  of 

u<i  (Philofophy  of  Hiflory,  article  Egypt)  that  Herntlotin  took  the  people 
of  Colchis  to  be  of  F.jryptiaii  extruviUon,  bscjufe  th^j  bad  eJwMriky  etia^Uxitui 
mnd  curled  huir.     Edit. 


4ia  A      SHORT 

the  kingdom  of  Damafcus  by  the  kings  of  Afl*yna, 
and  font  to  the  extremity  of  the  empire,  their  con- 
fefnon  will  prove  nothing  againft  the  Jews  ;  and  if 
they  were,  as  fomeof  the  learned  think,  part  oi  the 
ten  tribes  which  were  carried  off  by  Teglat  Phr.lazar 
and  Salmanazar,  can  we  concieve  that  thefe  Ifraeliter. . 
who  had  practifed  circumcifion  for  fo  many  a^es, 
could  fay  that  they  had  borrov/ed  it  from  their  new 
neighbours  the  Colchi  ? 

By  this  chicjiy  they  are  knoivn  to  ! e  originally  Egyp' 
iians.  You  juft  now  mentioned  the  Ccl<:hi,  the 
Syrians  of  Paleiiine,  the  Syrians  ofThermodon,  and 
their  neighbours  the  Macrons.  Tio  you  affirm,  fir, 
that  all  thefe  nations  defcended  from  the  Egyptians, 
and  that  Herodotus  has  faid  it  ?  He  conjedurcs  that 
the  Colchi  did,  but  he  does  not  affirm  it  of  the  Sy- 
rians of  Paleftine,  nor  of  thofe  of  Thermodon,  nor  of 
the  Macrons  their  neighbours  ;  he  only  fays  that 
bv  the  pra6lice  of  circumcifion,  thofe  nations  feem- 
ed  to  imitate  the  Egyptians,  which  certainly  can- 
not fignify  that  they  were  of  Egyptian  extradion. 
This  then  is  a  contrary  fenfe.  This  is  the  foundation 
of  your  opinion  !  But,  fir,  contrary  fenfes  are  no 
proofs. 

This  miflake  furprized  us  at  firft,  fir,  but  when 
we  difcovered  the  caufe  of  it,  our  furprize  ceafed  ; 
it  lies  in  the  Latin  tranfiator,  whom  you  follow 
blindly,  and  who  milleads  you.  Elere  then  you  are 
tak^n  in  the  very  fact,  and  you  can  make  no  de- 
fence ;  you  tranilate  Herodotus  juft  as  you  do  our 
facred  writings  from  the  Eatin  tranilation.  Now, 
that  a  man  fiiould  pretend  to  underftand  Greek,  He- 
brew, ^c.  &c.  and  yet  traniiate  from  a  Latin  tranf- 
lation,  without  ever  looking  into  the  original.  .  . 
You  feeU  fir,  what  might  be  faid  of  fuch  a  man  ; 
this  fuffices  ;  we  are  Jews  and  muft  be  filent, 
but  many  chriftian  criticks  (i)  would  not  be  io 
tame. 

(l)   Wo-JJ  not  btfo  tame.     Sr.c  tlie  Suppllmrnt  to  the  P^^ilof•■r^y  of  Mif- 
tory,  tie  Dcftuct:  oi'  the  Suoks  of  tl»c  Old  TcflamciH,  (Xc.     Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  413 

The  Phen'idans  have  aboliJJjed  the  cujiom  of  circum- 
djing  their  neiv-born  infants.  We  might  with  good 
reafon  contelt  this  fenfe,  that  ru^i-rcynoMyco^  fignifics 
new-born  infants  j  and  maintain  that  it  fignifies  no 
more  than  children  born  to  the  Phenicians  fmce  their 
connexion  with  the  Greeks  ;  or  perhaps  it  fignifies 
this  only,  and  probably  ftill  better,  their  children  ; 
this  feems  to  be  the  meaning  of  Herodotus,  and 
you  very  improperly  fubftitute  another  in  its  room. 

But  we  muft  obferve  to,  you,  that  if  it  was  the 
Phenician  cuftom  to  circumcife  new-born  infants, 
this  might  be  another  proof  that  they  took  this  rite 
from  the  Hebrews,  and  not  from  the  Egyptians;  for 
the  Hebrews  ufed  to  circumcife  their  new-born  in- 
fants, but  the  Egyptians  waited  until  their  childrea 
were  thirteen  or  fourteen  years  old,  to  get  this 
operation  performed  on  them. 

§  5.  He  contradids  Herodotus  in  a  prindpal  part 
of  that  redtal  on  ivhich  he  founds,  his  opinion,  the  ex^ 
pcdition  of  Sefojiris. 

That  Herodotus,  who  looks  upon  the  expedition 
of  Sefodris  into  Colchis  as  an  undoubted  faft,  (liould 
believe  that  the  Colchi  defcended  from  the  Egypti- 
ans, is  not  matter  of  aftoniihment,  thefe  two  opinions 
have  a  mutual  connexion  ;  the  one  explains  and 
efhablifhes  the  other.  But  is  there  not  room  for 
amazement,  when  we  fee  you  on  one  hand  in  the 
Philofophical  Di£lionary  referring  us  to  the  authori- 
ty of  Herodotus,  with  regard  to  circumcifion  and 
the  Egyptian  extraftion  of  the  Colchi ;  and  on  the 
other,  in  your  Philofophy  of  Hiftory  denying 
the  reality  of  the  expedition  of  Sefoftris  ?  It  is  you 

%» 

Text.  "  A  tale,  a  fable,  fuch  a  ftory  as  that  of 
**  Picrocole  in  Rabelas."  (Philofophy  of  Hiftory. 
Additions,  &c.) 

Comment.  You  continue,  fir,  to  treat  the  fa^ 
ther  of  hiftory,  and  his  accounts  in  a  very  honour- 
able manner  !  Still  you  ufe  the  fame  means  to  en- 

G 


4»4 


A       SHORT 


gage  us  to  refpecl  his  authority,  and  acquiefce  in 
his  teftimony. 

Sefoftris's  expedition  is  a  tale,  a  fable,  &c.     Might 
we  be  fo  bold,   fir,  as  to  afk  you  why  ? 
V   TtXT.     "   J  he  northern  nations  conquered  the 
"  fouthern,  and  not  the   fouthern  the  northern." 
(Univerfal  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  This  is  a  weak  argument,  which 
Herodotus  would  not  have  admitted,  and  which 
fads  contradict,  witnefs  the  Romans,  the  Arabi- 
ans, &c. 

Text.  "  Herodotus  relates  that  Sefoflris  went 
^'  out  of  Egypt  with  intent  to  conquer  the  whole 
"  world  ;  now  this  defign  of  conquering  the  whole 
<*  world  is  one  of  Picrocole's  projefts.*'     (Ibidim.) 

Comment.  Yes,  the  projecl  of  conquering  the 
whole  world  as  you  now  fee  it,  the  two  hemifpheres, 
the  entire  globe.  But  firfl:,  was  the  whole  world 
known  by  the  contemptible  Egyptians  ?  sld,  It  might 
be  a  ridiculous  projeft  to  attempt  the  conqueft  of  the 
world,  of  all  the  earth  literally.  But  how  could  a 
writer  of  fo  much  tafle  and  learning  as  Mr.  Voltaire," 
take  a  figurative  exprefllon  literally  ?  Every  one 
knows  that  this  phrafe  fignifies  no  more  than  to 
extend  conquefts  far  j  it  is  generally  underflood  in 
this  fenfe,  without  any  abfurdity  ;  othcrwife  when 
you  faid  that  the  difciples  of  Mahomet,  after  their 
jirji  viSlory,  hoped  (i)  io  conquer  the  ivor/ci,  you 
would  have  faid  an  abfurd  thing,  which  you  could 
not  do,  or  you  would  have  made  your  heroes  indulge 
themfelves  in  fuch  hopes  as  Picrocole  had,  whicb 
would  be  ridiculous. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  is  not  our  aim  at  prefent,  ta 
eflablifh  the  certainty  of  the  expedition  of  Sefofiiris  ; 
we  fhall  only  obferve  that  Herodotus  does  not  relate 


(l)  f»  comqutr  tL:  warlj.  See  Univerfal  Hiftory,  Vol.  ift,  chap.  4.  Th« 
illuflrioiit  writer  hinifelt  explains  this  manner  of  fpeaking,  to  canifuer  the 
%vL(,le  titrlJ,  he  fays,  that  is,  lo  conpier  ibe  nei^hheuring  pre-vinces-  Nnw  ig 
this  a  ri<liculou»  project  in  a  powerful  monarch  to  aim  a't  the  conquell  of 
Dcighbouring  nations,  and  tu  cxcc.id  thufc  conqucds  guadually  ?     £ait. 


COMMENTARY.  41  j* 

it  rafhly  and  without  proofs ;  that  he  produces  as 
witnefl'es  not  only  the  Egyptian  priefts,  but  alio  the 
monuments  which  exifted  in  his  time,  and  which  he 
himfelf  had  feen,  thofe  ftatues,  thofe  pillars  of  which- 
he  fpeaks,  loaded  with  infcriptions  in  Egyptian  cha- 
racters, Sec.  that  his  account  is  confirmed  by  Diodo- 
rus  Siculus,  and  by  a  great  number  of  ancient  wri- 
ters f  and  that  criticks  of  the  firll:  rank  look  upoa 
this  expedition  as  a  paflage  of  hillory  inconteftible, 
(1)  at  lead  in  fundamentals, 

But  if  any  one  can  invalidate  the  truth  of  this 
fa.£t,  it  is  not  you,  dr.  Why  ?  Becaufe,  refufing 
to  beUeve  Herodotus,  when  he  fpeaks  of  the  antiqui- 
ties which  he  ha3  examined,  as  he  had  examined  this 
point  of  hiftory,  is  contradicting  yourfelf,  and  a6ling 
in  dired  oppofition  to  your  own  aflfertions  ;  becaufe 
to  maintain  circumcifion  and  the  Egyptian  extradion 
of  the  Colchi,  and  at  the  fame  time  to  deny  the  ex- 
pedition of  Sefoftris,  is  embracing  an  opinion,  and 
denying  that  which  makes  it  probable  ;  becaufe  de- 
nying the  expedition  of  Sefoflris,  and  ftriving  to  ex- 
plain circumcifion  and  the  Egyptian  extraction  of 
the  Colchi  by  a  pretended  invafion  of  this  people  in- 
to Egypt,  as  you  do,  is  giving  up  mofl  abfurdly 
a  probable  and  well-attefted  fatt,  for  an  empty  nor 
tion,  a  vain  imagination,  devoid  of  any  found  proofy 
and  laftly,  becaufe  this  pretended  invafion,  even 
were  it  true,  would  explain  but  ill  (efpecially  accord- 
ing to  your  principles)  the  origin  of  circumcifion  a-- 
mong  the  Colchi ;  becaufe  then  it  would  follow  that 
the  victorious  nation  adopted  the  manners  of  the 
conquered,  which  you  think  abfurd  ;  and  that  they 
had  adopted  a  painful  rite,  and  according  to  you, 
a  very  ufelefs  one,  which  is  incredible. 

(l)  At  leaft  in  fundamentalt.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Abbc  Mii^not,  in  tli* 
laft  volume  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  Academy  of  B(illcs  I^ettres.  There  is  alfo 
to  he  found  in  it  an  excellent  clifPertation  of  Mr.  Diipin,  in  arfwcr  to  f<ome 
difficulties  propofed  agiinft  tV>is  expedition  b^'  the  learned  author  of  the  Ori- 
gin of  Arts,  Sciences  and  Laws.  St-a  befidcs  the  Defence  of  Chrenolojjy  a- 
gaiiift  Newton's  Syftem,  by  Mr.  Frcret.  We  think  that  fuch  authoriti«»  &t 
^fifc  nujr  tfcry  jullly  bs  oppofsd  lo  that  of  Mr.  VoUaif«.     dat. 


4i6  A      S    H    O    R    T 

But  this  IS  enough,  and  perhaps  too  much  with  re- 
gard to  Herodotus.  You  tranflate  him  ill,  and  vou 
contradict  him  j  you  can  therefore  claim  no  advan- 
tage  from  him.     Let  us  proceed  to  Jofephus. 

§  6.  He  charges  Jofephus  with  a  confejjicn  ivhicb 
he  does  not  make. 

'  One  of  the  reafons  which  you  have  alledged  to 
prove,  that  the  Hebrews  borrowed  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcifion  from  the  Egyptians,  is  a  confeflion  of  Jo- 
fephus. 

Text.  "  Flavins  Jofephus,  in  his  anfwer  to  Ap- 
"  pian,  lib.  2.  chap.  5.  exprefsly  confeffes,  that 
**  the  Egyptians  taught  other  nations  the  rite  of  cir- 
*'  cumcifion,  as  Herodotus  witneffes.**  (Philofophy 
ofHiftory.) 

Comment.  No,  fir,  Jofephus  does  not  exprefsly 
confefs  that  the  Egyptians  taught  other  nations  the 
rite  of  circumcifion  ;  he  quotes  Herodotus  without 
contradiding  him,  for  this  was  not  his  objed  ;  but 
he  makes  no  confeflion  with  refped  to  this  ;  the  only 
conclufion  he  draws  from  this  paflage  of  Herodotus- 
is,  that  the  Jews  were  not  abfolutely  unknown  to  this 
hiftorian,  which  feems  true. 

Therefore  this  pretended  exprefs  confeflion,  which 
you  afcribe  to  Jofephus,  is  a  mifl:ake,  or,  if  we  dare 
affirm  it,  fomething  worfe  than  a  miflake. 

§  7.     Other  reafons  ivhicb  he  alledges^  confuted.  . 
To  the  authority  of  Jofephus,  you  add   that  of 
Clemens  Alexandrinus. 

Text.  "  Clemens  Alexandrinus  relates,  that 
"  when  Pythagoras  travelled  thro' Egypt,  he  was  o- 
'*  bliged  to  get  himfelf  circumcifed,  m  order  to  be 
admitted  into  their  myiteries.  Therefore  it  was 
abfolutely' necelfary  to  be  circumcifed,  to  be  of  the 
number  of  Egyptian  prieft:s."  (Philofoph.  Didi- 
onary.) 

Comment.  Yes,  in  the  time  of  Pythagoras  ;  but 
there  is  fome  difl:ance  of  time,  fir,  between  Pythago- 
ras and  Abraham.  An  interval  of  about  one  thou- 
£and  two  hundr<;d  years  is  cc:ta:!:'y  fulHricut  fn.r  the 


(C 


it 


COMMENTARY.  417 

introdudlon  of  a  rite  into  a  country ;  and  this  rite 
after  one  thoufand  years  had  elapfed,  might  have 
been  imparted  to  a  ftranger  by  the  priefts  of  Egypt, 
as  b?ing  of  great  antiquity.     But, 

Text.  "  It  was  neceflary  to  be  circumcifed  to 
"  be  of  the  number  of  Egyptian  priefts.     Thefe 

priefts     exifted    when  Jofeph    went  into    Egypt. 

The  government  was   very  ancient,  and  the  old 

ceremonies  of  Egypt  were  obferved  with  the  moil 

fcrupulous  exa£lnefs."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Thefe p riejis  exijied  when  Jofeph  went 
into  Egypt,  "QwtdatX  xhty  Q-id{\.  circumcifed  ?  The  old 
ceremonies  of  Egypt  were  obferved  with  the  mofl: 
fcrupulous  exaftnefs,  but  was  circumcifion  one  of 
thofe  old  ceremonies  ?  Thefe  things  you  fhould  have 
proved,  fir,  and  you  have  not  done  it. 

It  is  certain  that  Jofeph  was  circumcifed  when  he 
went  into  Egypt ;  it  is  as  clear  that  his  brethren  and 
their  children  were  fo  hkewife,  and  that  their  Jjofte- 
rity  perfevered  in  the  ufe  of  this  rite,  during  the 
whole  time  of  their  refidence  in  Egypt ;  therefore 
they  did  not  borrow  it  from  the  Egyptians. 

Text.  *'  Abraham  travelled  thro*  Egypt,  which 
*'  had  been  for  a  long  time  before  a  kingdom  go- 
"  verned  by  a  powerkil  king.  Nothing  prevents 
"  us  from  believing  that  circumcifion  was  ufed  for 
"  a  long  time  in  this  ancient  kingdom,  before  the 
"  Jewifti  nation  was  formed."  (Philofoph.  Dic- 
tionary.) 

Comment.  Altho'  nothing  prevents  us  from  be- 
lieving this,  yet  nothing  proves  it.  We  require 
proofs  from  you,  and  you  fay  nothing  prevents.  Tru- 
ly this  is  a  convincing  fort  of  proof! 

Nothing  prevents.  But  have  you  confidered  this, 
fir  .^  That  Abraham  did  not  receive  circumcifion  till 
twenty  years  alter  his  return  from  Egypt,  when  he 
was  ninety-nine  years  old.  If  he  received  this  rite 
in  order  to  imitate  the  Egyptians,  why  did  he  con- 
form fo  late  ?  Why  did  he  not  conform  wh'lft  he 
lived  aniongft  them  ?  Can  any  one  conceive  that  in 
order  to  follow   their  example,  twenty  years  after 


4iS  A      S    H     O     R    T 

Ke  had  left  them,  he  fubmitted,  at  fuch  an  advancecj 
age,  to  fo  dangerous  an  operation  ?  Or  that  he  adopt- 
ed, a§  a  fjgn  of  his  covenant  with  God,  and  as  a  dif- 
tinguiiliing  character  of  his  pofterity,  a  rite  which  was 
a  Jong  time  ufed  in  a  neighbouring  nation  ?  Thefe 
lesfons,  fir,  might  prevent  us  from  beheving  that  cir- 
ciimcifion  was  at  that  time  ufed  in  Egypt. 

Add  to  this,  that  it  15  faid  in  Genefis,  that  Abra- 
hain  caufed  (i)  all  his  fiaves  to  be  circumcifed,  and 
that  among  them  there  were  (2)  fome  Egyptians  ; 
that  the  Philiftines,  an  Egyptian  colony,  are  called  in 
the  fcriptures,  (3)  uncircumcifed  ;  thefe  are  two 
fatts  from  which  we  might  conclude  that  circumci- 
fion  was  not  pra^lifed  by  the  Egyptians,  either  at 
^11  times,  or  in  the  time  of  Abraham.     But, 

Text.  "  Before  the  time  of  Joihua,  the  Ifraelites, 
^•'  even  by  their  own  eonfefiion,  took  many  cuftoms 
from  the  Egyptians  ;  they  imitated  them  in  many 
ceremonies,  in  fafts,  ablutions,  &c.     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Without  granting  you,  fir,  that  the 
Ifraelites,  by  their  own  confeffion,  took  thofe  rites 
from  the  Egyptians,  which  you  point  out,  we  will  al- 
low that  they  borrowed  fome  cufioms  from  them. 
But  is  this  a  proof  that  they  took  a  rite  from  them, 
which  it  is  doubtful  whether  Egypt  knew  before 
them  ? 

§   8.     That  it  is  improbable  that  the  Ifraelites  bor-. 
reived  circi{?nci/iofi  from  the  Egyptituns. 

You  have  therefore  produced  no  convincing  proof 
that  our  fathers  borrowed  circumcifion  from  the 
Jlgyptians.  So  far  from  rendering  this  opinion  of 
Marfham's  more  probable,  you  have  involved  it  in 
new  difficulties.  Your  notions  concerning  the  prac- 
tice of  circumcifion  among  the  Hebrews  are  uncer- 
tain and  falfe,  your  afi'ertions  concerning  the  Egyp<- 
tians  contradi<^pry)  the  authority  of  Herodotus  fub* 

(1)  jillLJi/lavet.     §£e  Gencfjs,  cb.  17.  V.  27.     Xw. 
(a)  Some  Eayptinns.     See  Genefis,  ch.  13.  v.  16.     ylut. 
(3)   Uncircumcifed.     ifl.  bo«k  of  King":,  ch,  d7.  v.  26.  ch.  l3.  ▼.  24,  Ac. 
Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  419 

verted  by  yourfelf,  his  text  falfely  rendered^  a  con- 
trary meaaing  given  to  that  of  Joihua,the  teftimony 
of  Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  foreign  to  the  queltion, 
&;c.  Sach  reafons,  fir,  cannot  counterbalance  tha 
regular  tradition  of  the  Jews  and  Arabians,  two  na- 
tions who,  notwithftanding  their  hereditary  antipa- 
thy towards  each  other,  agree  in  looking  upon  this 
rite  as  inftituted  by  their  common  father. 

To  this  tradition,  let  us  add  thofe  texts  of  fcrip* 
tare  in  which  the  appointment  of  this  ceremony  is 
related,  and  thofe  wherein  it  feems  announced  as  a 
fign  to  diillnguifh  the  fons  of  Jacob  from  the  Canan 
anites,  the  Philiftines  and  (i)  uncircamcifed  Egyp-» 
tians. 

In  fhort,  this  rite  has  among  the  Hebrews  a  cleat 
origin,  a  reafonable  motive,  a  conftant  ufage  ;  it 
goes  up  inconteftibly  to  the  common  father  of  the 
nation  ;  it  has  a  reafonable  motive,  for  it  is  th^ 
feal  of  God's  covenant  with  the  patriarch,  and  al 
pledge  of  the  blefiing  of  the  Lord  on  his  poilerity  ; 
it  has  a  conllant  uiage,  except  during  the  forty 
years  which  they  fpent  in  the  wildcmefs  ;  the  Jews- 
have  pradifed  this  rite  without  interruption,  from 
the  time  of  Abraham  to  this  day. 

Of  the  Egyptians  fo  much  cannot  be  faid }  the 
origin  of  this  rite  am;png  them  is  fo  uncertain,  thatt 
Herodotus  cannot  determine  whether  they  took  i(f 
from  the  Ethiopians,  or  the  Ethiopians  from  them* 
You  yourfelf  confute  the  various  motives  for  this 
ftrange  ceremony  which  are  afcribed  to  them,  health, 
cleanlinefs,  fruitfulnefs  ;  and  that  whi'ch  you  fubfti- 
tute  in  the  place  of  thefe,  akho'  it  is  more  ingeni- 
ous, is  not  more  rational.  Even  the  practice  of  rhis' 
rite  has  varied  fo  much  among  the  Egyptians,  that 
it  is  equally  impoffible  to  determine  the  time  in 
which  it  began  and  ended  ;  and  that  it  is  unccrtairV 
whether  the  whole  nation  adopted  it,  or  when  it  did, 

(r)  Viizircumc'fii  Bg^jtfians,     All  thef:;  teits  have  been   quoted  above. 
Aut. 


42  o 


SHORT 


or  when  it  was  reflrained  to  the  priefts  and  the  Ini- 
tiated only. 

Is  it  probable,  fir,  that  a  nation  which  praiflifed 
circumcifion  univerfally,  invariably,  conftantly,  dur- 
ing more  than  thirty  centuries,  thro'  a  motive  which 
alone  could  render  this  praftife  reafonable,  borrow- 
ed it  from  a  nation,  which  ufed  it  fo  fliort  a  time 
with  fo  many  variations,  and  for  fo  many  foolifh  rea- 
fons  ? 

§   9.  From  whence  the  Egyptians  took  circumcijton. 

But  you  will  fay,  from  whence  then  did  the  Egyp- 
tians borrow  circumcifion  ?  From  whence  you  pleafe, 
fir;  it  concerns  us  but  little  to  know  this,  and  we 
think  that  there  can  be  httle  more  than  conjedtures 
with  regard  to  it. 

Some  of  the  learned  affirm  that  the  Egyptians  re- 
ceived this  lite  from  their  priefts,  and  that  thefe 
priefts  got  it  from  Jofeph.  It  is  certainly  not  im- 
probable that  the  Egyptian  prieft  imitated  a  rite  which 
was  ufed  by  a  prim«  minifter  in  favour,  whofe  great 
wifdom  they  admired,  and  to  whom  they  were  in- 
debted for  the  prefervation  of  their  property  and  pri- 
vileges. This  would  not  have  been  the  cafe  of  maf- 
ters  imitating  their  Haves. 

Others  rather  fuppofc,  and  we  join  them,  that  the 
Egyptians  borrowed  this  rite  from  the  Arabians,  de- 
fcendants  of  Abraham ;  for  thefe  Arabians  ruled 
over  Egypt  for  a  time ;  and  it  is  not  wonderful  16 
fee  the  conquered  people  following  the  cuftoms  of 
their  mafters.  The  account  of  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus  gives  ftill  greater  weight  to  this  fuppofition,  for 
he  fays  that  the  Egyptian  circumcifion  bears  a  much 
ftronger  refemblance  to  that  of  the  Arabians  than  (i ) 
to  that  of  the  Jews. 

Such  are  our  thoughts,  fir,  on  the  origin  of  cir- 
cumcifion among  the  Egyptians  and  the  Jews.     Are 

(i)  Ti)  that  »f  the  "je-Mt.  The  Jtw«  circumcifed  and  do  ftill  circumcifc 
their  cliildrcn  the  eighth  day  after  their  b'rth.  The  Egyptians  diJ  it  later 
%%  well  at  the  Arabians,  generally  in  the  thirteenth  yeaci     Aut. 


COMMENTARY.  421 

you  ftill  fond  of  your  opinion  ?  Reft  in  it  then.  But 
if  you  want  to  perfuadeyour  readers  to  reft  in  it  too, 
endeavour  to  fupport  it  with  better  proofs,  and  do 
not  t-ake  away  their  force  by  contradicting  them ; 
but  efpecially,  as  you  rely  on  the  teftimony  of  Hero- 
dotus, fpeak  better  of  him,  and  tranllate  him  more 
faithfully.      * 

TENTH    EXTRACT. 

Of  Solomon  ;   of  his  elevation  to  the  throne^  and  of  the 
extent  of  his  dominions. 

If  in  your  Philofophy  of  Hiftory,  whilft  you  are 
fpeakin'g  of:  the  difterent  Jewifh  ftates,  you  are  filent 
with  refpect  to  Solomon,  altho'  he  might  have  been 
brought  in  naturally  enough,  yet  your  readers  are 
upon  the  whole  at  no  lofs  ;  for  we  find  a  long  arti- 
cle upon  this  king  of  the  Jews  in  your  Philofophical 
Dictionary. 

You  firft  allow,  that  Solomon  was  always  revered 
in  the  Edji  ;  that  the  works  which  are  afcribed  to  him, 
the  annals  of  the  fews^  the  fables  of  the  Arabians  have 
borne  his  name  as  far  as  the  Indies,  a?id  that  his  reign 
is  the  grand  period  of  the  Hebrews. 

But  however  the  fplendour  of  his  reign,  the  \\ff^^ 
reputation  ^f  the  monarch,  the  opinions  of  the  Jews 
and  Arabians  are  of  little  weight  with  you.  If  we 
believe  you,  this  revered  monarch  was  a  bloody  ufur- 
per,  his  vaft  empire  a  petty  ftate,  and  the  works 
which  are  afcribed  to  him,  are  neither  his  (1)  nor 
worthy  of  him.  This  is  the  fubftance  of  what  you 
fay  of  a  king  whofe  name  has  been  blazoned  thro* 
the  world. 

3H 

(r)  Nor  -worthy  of  bim.  It  IS  hard  to  conceive  how  writing*,  which  are 
not  Solonion's,  nor  wortiiy  of  him,  can  have  riifed  his  charatler  fo  univer- 
^ally.  The  lume  of  a  ^reat  nunarch,  placed  at  the  head  of  his  works,  may 
gain  them  celebrity,  but  it  fecms  paradoxical  that  hooks,  unworthy  of  a  great 
nioiiaxch,  fiiou'd  raifo  hi*  charaAcr.  We  niuft  rcqucU  tl»at  the  illuHriouO- 
Writer  will  folve  this  jjsradux.     LJU , 


422  A      S    H     O     R     T 

It  would  be  tedious  now  to  enter  into  all  thefe 
particulars  ;  and  we  are  informed  that  (i)  a  learned 
Chriftianis  preparing  a  full  anfwerto  them  ;  we  fliall 
therefore  confine  ourfelves  to  fome  points  which  ap- 
pear ftriking  to  us. 

§   I.  Elevatiofi   of  Solomon  io  the  throne. 

Was  the  elevation  ol  Solomon  to  the  throne  an  u- 
furpation  ?  This  is  your  notion  ot  it. 

Text.  "  Bethfabe  prevailed  on  David  to  get  her 
*'  fon  Solomon  crowned  inilead  of  his  elder  brother 
"  Adonias."     (Philofoph.  Did.) 

Comment.  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  (2)  great 
BofTuet,  that  in  our  nation,  as  well  as  in  yours, 
kings  fucceeded  one  another  in  the  male  and  elder 
lines  ;  an  order  of  fucceflion,  which  he  fay,  was 
(3)  wifely  inftituted  for  the  prevention  of  civil  wars, 
and  of  (4)  the  dominion  of  foreigners  in  thofe  dates. 

But  you  fuppofe  that  thi^  order  was  fo  well  eftab- 
liflied  in  the  time.of  Oavid,  that  the  throne  rightful- 
ly belonged  to  the  eldeft  fon,  independently  of  the 
appointment  of  God,  and  of  the  father's  will.  This,, 
fir,  you  fliould  have  proved,  before  you  accufed  So- 
lomon of  ufurpation  and  injuftice  ;  and  it  would  be 
hard  for  you  we  think  to  produce  good  proofs  of  it. 

It  appears  on  the  contrary,  that  David  founded 
Srolomon's  right  and  his  own  on  the  choice  of  the 
Lord.  Hozubeit  the  Lord  God  of  Ifrael  (5)  chofe  me 
before  all  the  houfe  of  my  father^  to  be  king  over  Ifrael; 
And  of  all  myfons  he  hath  chofen  Solomon  to  fit  upon  the 

(1)  Aharned  Cbrip.ian.  The  Al>be  Nonnote.  We  are  alTured  thathe  witl 
foon  publiHi  a  complete  rcfufaticn  of  tlie  Philofspliical  Didlionary.  If  we 
may  form  a  judgment  of  this  future  worlc,  by  his  excellent  piece  of  criticilni 
on  the  Univerfal  Hiftory,  it  w  ill  be  a  very  folid  refutation.     BJit. 

(2)  Great  Eajfiiet.     See  his  Folil'quejiicree ■ 

(3)  Wifely  infiituted.  The  author  of  the  Philofophic^l  Dlflionary  think* 
very  differently  from  Boffuet  on  this  fubjedt,  as  well  as  on  many  others.  If 
the  people  of  France  would  follow  his  advice,  thty  would  foon  reform  th« 
Salick  law.     See  the  Philofophical  Div5lionary,  article  Laws,     /9ut 

(4)  The  dominion  ofj'oreigncn.  The  law  forbad  the  Hebrews  to  take  a  kin^ 
rvf  any  other  nation.       N»h  ^oteris  alierius  ^cnt'is  Laviinem  rcgcmfacere  qui  non  H( 

/rater  tuus.    This  was  a  wife  and  ntccflary  regulaiiou  among  this  peo- 

J>lc.      Edit. 

(j)  Gbofemc, — 


COMMENTARY.  423 

throne  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Lsrd  over  Jfrael.  The  or- 
der of  fucceflion  was,  fo  far  from  being  fettled  at  that 
time,  that  Bathfabe  fcruples  not  to  fay  to  David, 
And  thou,  viy  lord,  0  king,  the  eyes  of  all  Ifrael  are 
upon  thee,  that  thou  fhouldd  tell  them  who  fh all  fit 
{i)  on  the  throne  of  Ifrael  after  thee.  And  in  confe- 
quence  of  this,  as  foon  as  David  had  named  his  luc- 
ceflbr,  and  that  Solomon  had  been  anoint :d  by  hiji 
order,  all  Ifrael  acknoM^ledged  him  as  (2)  their. law- 
ful king.  Do  you  flatter  yourfelf  with  being  a  better 
judge  of  the  right  of  fuccelTion  to  the  crown  in  our 
nation,  than  the  nation  itfelf? 

Text.  *'  She  had  art  enough  to  get  the  inherit- 
"  ance  given  to  the  fruit  of  her  adultery."  (Ibi- 
dem.) 

Comment.  We  imagined  that  the  fruit  of  Beth- 
{habe's  adultery  had  died  a  few  days  after  its  birth  ; 
and  that  the  Lord,  moved  by  the  ftrong  and  fmcere 
repentance  of  David,  had  legitimated  this  marriage, 
which  commenced  by  a  crime.  More  inexorable 
than  the  God  of  our  fathers,  you  determine  thai  the 
tears  and  forrows  of  this  penitent  monarch  deferved. 
no  fort  of  indulgence.  Such  is  the  rigour  or  rather 
inflexibility  of  your  juftice. 

Text.  "  Nathan  who  had  gone  to  upbraid  Da- 
vid for  his  adultery,  was  the  fame  man  who  fecon- 
ded  Bethfabe'a  application  for  placing  Solomon 
*'  on  the  throne.  This  condu<5t,  if  we  only  reafon 
"  according  to  the  flefh,  would  prove  that  this  Na- 
'*  than  had,  according  to  circumflances,  divers 
*'  weights  and  meafures."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Yes,  fir,  Nathan  had  two  meafures, 
one  meafure  of  rigour  againfl:  an  adulterous  and 
murdering  king,  and  another  of  indulgence  for  a  pe- 

"' (l)   On  ibe  tlronf  of  Tjrael.     ift  bonk  of  Chronicles,  chap.  28.  v.   4,   and 
J.  and  ifc  book  of  Kingi,  ch.    i.  v.  20. 

(a)  " hc'ir  l.irvful king  Even  fince  the  time  of  David  fome  i^f  our  kings 
choTc  for  their  fucct(r)rs,  amont;  their  children,  others  than  their  firlt  hurn, 
and  the  nation  acknowledged  them  as  lawful  fovercigns.  Whc-n,  tiurcfore, 
iAdonias  fays  to  Bcthfabe,  the  :ro\vn  iekngej  tc  me,  he  fpcaks  (<f  tjae  common 
order  of  fucceGion,  and  not  of  an  abiolutc  ri^ht  or  eftablifhcd  law,  which  de- 
prived the  father  tif  the  right  of  appointing  his  fucceHor.     Efit, 


424  A      S    H    O    R    T 

nltent  and  contrite  finner.  Would  he  be  more  equi- 
table who  would  appoint  the  fame  meaiure  for  a 
crime,  and  for  repentance  after  having  committed 

§  2.   Death  ofAdo7iias, 
His  death  you  think  unjult,  fir,  and  in  order  to 
prove  it  fuch,  you  fay, 

Text.  "  Adonias,  after  he  was'excluded  from  the 
throne  by  Solomon,  afl^ed  him  as  a  fmgular  fa- 
vour, permiflion  to  marry  Abifag,  that  young 
girl  which  had  been  given  to  David  to  keep  him 
warm  in  his  old  age  ;  and  the  fcripture  fays,  that 
merely  for  this  rcqueft  Solomon  caufed  him  to  be 
aiTaffinated."  (Ibidem.) 
Comment.  Afked  him  as  a  jingular  favour.  But 
obferve  what  the  eloquent  Bifhop  of  Meaux  fays. 
This  favour  was  of  infinite  confequence  from  the 
manners  of  this  people  ;  in  thefe  manners  Adonias 
*'  was  forming  a  n-w  title  to  the  crown.  Why  do 
*'  you  not  afk  the  throne  for  him,  (fays  he  to  Beth- 
"  fabe)  he  is  already  theeldefl  ?   &c.'* 

Merely  for  this  requcft.  No,  fir,  the  fcripture  had 
already  fliewn  the  haughty  character  of  Adonias,  the 
project  he  had  formed  of  feizing  the  crown  without 
the  king's  confent,  or  rather  againft  it,  and  even  dur- 
ing his  father's  life,  his  connexions  v^qth  Joab,  a 
danserous  man,  of  whom  David  had  often  had  iufl 
reafon  to  complain,  hz.  Therefore  it  was  not  merely 
for  this  requeji  to  marry  Abifag,  that  Solomon  caufed 
him  to  be  put  to  death  ;  it  was  on  account  of  this  re- 
queft,  -added  to  the  knowledge  of  his  cabals  and  pre- 
tenfions  which  he  wanted  to  llrengthcn  by  this  new 
title. 

Text.  "  Probably  God  who  had  given  him  the 
"  gift  of  wifdom,  denied  him  then  the  gift  of  juftice 
**  and  humanity.     (Ibidem.) 

CoMMi.NT.  When  you  charged  Solomon  with  the 
want  of  juftice  and  humanity,  did  you  polTefs  thcgift 
of  difcretion,  fir  ? 


(C 

cc 


COMMENTARY.  425 

Far  be  it  from  us,  fir,  to  juftify  crimes.  If  Solo- 
mon caufed  his  brother  to  be  put  to  death,  without 
juft  reafons  of  perfonal  fecurity,  or  for  the  good  of 
the  ftate,  (r)  he  was  furely  guilty.  But  are  you  fure 
that  he  had  none  of  thefe  reafons  ?  Confider,  fir, 
that  according  to  the  manners  of  that  age  and  coun- 
try, if  the  defigns  of  Adonias  had  fucceeded,  (2)  So- 
lomon and  his  mother  would  have  been  in  the  higheft 
danger.  And  how  can  you  tell  but  this  facrTfice, 
which  mud  have  rent  Solomon's  heart,  was  offered 
up  for  the  tranquillity  of  his  country,  and  the  peace 
of  his  fubjeds  ?  The  character  of  Adonias,  the  num- 
ber of  his  partizans,  his  paff  intrigues,  and  his  late 
attempt  might  have  caufed  Solomon  to  fear,  if  he 
had  fpared  his  life,  the  involving  his  people  in  the 
horrors  of  blood  and  civil  war  ;  the  juflice  and  hu- 
manity of  kings  often  oblige  them  to  be  fevere. 

We  think  that  if  you  had  refleded  on  thefe  things, 
you  would  not  have  been  fo  hafty  in  condemning  a 
great  and  wife  monarch,  whofe  reafons  and  fecret 
views  you  was  not  acquainted  with. 

§  3.    Exte?it  of  Solomon'' s  dominions. 
You   add,  fir,  that  the  fcripture  contradids  itfelf 
in  fpeaking  of  Solomon's  dominions. 

Text.  "  It  is  faid,  in  the  third  book  of  Kin^rs, 
that  he  was  mafter  of  a  great  kingdom,  which  ex- 
tended from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Red  Sea  and 
the  Mediterranean."  (Ibidem.) 
Comment.  All  this  is  faid,  fir,  and  all  this  is 
true.     But  you  add. 

Text.  "  Unfortunately  it  is  faid  at  the  fame 
"  time,  that  the  king  of  Egypt  had  conquered  the 
country  of  Gazer  in  Canaan,  and  that  he  gave  the 
city  of  Gazer  to  his  daughter  as  a  portion,  Vv^hom, 
they  fay,  Solomon  married."     (Ibidem.) 

(i)  He  leat  furrly  guilty.  V/c  {hall  not  deny  that  fomc  commentntors  cen- 
fnreboiomon,  l)ut  they  give  different  reafons  from  Mr.  Voitaire's,  and  thcfc 
reafons  have  always  appeared  very  weak  to  us.     Aut. 

^2)  Solomon  ami  hh  mother.  &.c.  See  I  ft  Book  of  King?,  di.  r.  t.  T2.  and 
21.  Save  your  U/e  and  that  of  your  Jill,  fays  Nathan  to  Bethfabe,  &c.     /itt. 


<c 
it 
(( 


(C 


426  A      S    II     O     R    T 

Comment.  Unfortunately  ^ox  ^^qm,  fir,  you  fottitf 
times  fee  contradictions  where  there  are  none,  and 
you  often  do  not  fee  them  where  they  are  really  to 
be  found. 

When  the  Hebrews  conquered  Palefline,  the  Ca- 
naanites  of  Gazer  remained  in  pofieffion  of  this  city, 
but  however  ftill  as  their  vaffals  and  tributaries  ;  the 
fcripture  exprefsly  fays  it  ;  they  had  lived  thus  un- 
der David,  and  did  fo  now  under  Solomon  ;  Gazer 
therefore  had  been  part  of  his  dominions,  before  the 
king  of  Egypt  (i)  (probably  with  Solomon's  eon- 
fent)  befieged  it,  and  took  it.  After  this  viclo- 
ry  Pharaoh  gave  up  hisconquelt  to  the  king  oflfrael, 
whom  he  conflituted  by  this  ceflion  proprietor  in 
chief,  inflead  of  Lord  Paramount  ;  and  this  ceffion 
made  by  the  king  of  Egypt  was  really  part  of  his 
daughter's  portion. 

Whom  they  fay  Solomon  married,  hz.  We  maintain 
it  from  our  annals.  Have  you  any  proof  to  the  con-, 
trary,  fir  ? 

Text.  ''  There  was  a  king  at  Damafcus,  the 
'«  kingdoms  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  were  in  a  flourifhing 
«  ftate.'*     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Yes  ;  but  the  kingdoms  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  tho'  powerful  by  fea,  poffelTed  only  a 
Cape  on  the  continent  ;  and  the  king  of  Damaf- 
cus, having  been  conquered  by  David,  had  been  tri- 
butary to  him,  and  was  fo  now  to  Solomon  ;  thefe 
two  Jewifh  kings  kept  garrifons  in  Damafcus ;  they 
were  maflers  of  this  country  as  far  as  the  Euphrates,', 
and  poifeifed  it  fo  fully,  that  Solomon  caufed  the  fa- 
mous city  of  Tadmor  or  Palmyra  to  be  built  there  ; 
therefore  the  king  of  Damafcus  ;  and  the  kingdoms 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon  did  not  prevent  Solomon's  do- 
minions  from  extending  from  the  Euphrates  to  the 


(l)  Pro'ahfy  ivlth  ^ofomor's  'canffnt.  Wc  itnapine  that  affr  David's  death 
the  peoplo  of  Kji/.iV  thought  it  afit  oppor.un.ry  forlhakiiig  ofT  the  new  k;iijj'» 
yoke,  and  that  it  wai  in  order  to  afiiil  hiiu  that  Pharaoh,  his  ally  and  father 
in  law,    laid  fiege  to  this  city..     Aut, 


COMMENTARY  427 

Red  Sea,  and  from  Arabia  deferta  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean. Now  we  do  not  think  this  extent  of  coun- 
try fo  fmall  a  ftate  ;  Ibme  celebrated  nations  have  had 
fmaller  dominions. 

But  you  will  afk,  are  thefe  mighty  conquefls  of 
David  credible  ?  How  can  we  believe,  for  inftance, 
that. 

Text.  "  Saul  who  at  firft  had  but  two  fwords 
*'  in  his  whole  dominions,  foon  raifed  an  army  of 
*'  three  hundred  and  thirty  thoufand  men.  The 
**  Turkifh  Sultan  never  had  fuch  numerous  armies  ? 
"  they  where  fufficient  for  conquering  the  whole 
"   world."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  An  army  of  three  hundred  and  thir- 
fy  thoufand  men.  You  have  been  often  told,  fir, 
that  in  thefe  ancient  times,  every  man  who  could 
bear  arms  was  a  foldier  ;  therefore  an  army  of  thii» 
number  was  not  a  thing  fo  impofiible  and  inconceiv- 
able as  you  imagine. 

The   Tiirk'iJ]}    Sultan  never  had  fuch  numerous   ar- 
mies.    It  feems,  fir,  to  be  a  long  time  fince  you  have., 
read  the  hiflory  of  the  Turks,  but  do  you  never  ^zt 
news-papers  read  to  you  ? 

They  iverefufficient  for  cofiquering  the  whole  ivorld. 
The  world  !  This  is  faying  much,  fir,  the  world  is 
very  large. 

You  have  made  fo  many  agreeable  and  ingenious 
jefts  on  the  projett  of  Sefoflris,  and  on  the  hopes 
you  give  the  Jews  oi conquering  the  whole  ivorld  f  And 
you  begin  to  talk  in  their  ilile  of  conquering  ths 
ivorld  ! 

Text.  "  Thefe  contradi£lions  feem  to  ex- 
"  elude  all  kind  of  reafoning  ;  but  thofe  who  wifli 
"  to  reafon  find  it  extraordinary  that  David,  who  {wc- 
. "  ceeded  Saul  after  he  was  vanquiflied  by  the  Phili- 
*'  llines,  (hould  have  been  able,  during  his  reign, 
*'  to  found  a  valt  empire.'*     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Thofe  who  wife  to  reafon^  he. 
But,  fir,  is  it  reafoning  to  think  it  extiacrdinary  that 


428  A       S     H     O     R     T 

the  fucceffor  of  a  king,  defeated  in  battle,  fhould 
have  gained  many  viftories  and  conquered  many  pro- 
vinces ?  This  is  pronouncing  a  fatt  incredible,  ot 
which  there  are  a  thoufand  inflances  in  hiflo- 
ry.  How  many  nations,  after  learning  the  art  of 
war  by  defeats,  have  triumphed  over  their  conquer- 
ors ! 

Should  have  been  able  during  his  reign.  But  this 
reign  was  long  ;  David's  conqucfls  where  the  fruit 
ot  forty  years  battles  and  victories  ;  is  it  impoflible 
that  a  warlike  king,  by  fo  many  labours  and  victories, 
fliould  have  extended   his  dominions  ? 

'^Ihefe  contradidions  Jeem  to  exclude  all  reafoning. 
And  will  not  fuch  reafonings  at  laft  exclude  all 
faith  ?  Biware,  fir  ;  the  public  begins  to  be  clear- 
fighted,  and  to  be  weary  of  having  been  fo  long  the 
dupe  of  a  great  name  ;  it  is  gradually  withdrawing 
a  confidence  which  it  too  freely  gave. 

ELEVENTH     EXTRACT. 

It  feems,  fir,  you  are  refolved  to  difpute  Solomon, 
his   proverbsj  as  well  as  his  dominions. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  fay  that  this  work  is  entire- 
ly Solomon's  ;  the  very  title  of  the  two  laft  chapters 
ffiews  the  contrary  ;  and  we  are  fenfible  that  many 
learned  men  look  upon  it  only  as  a  coUeclion  of  fen.- 
tences  and  maxims  extra(5tcd,for  the  moft  part,  out  of 
this  prince's  works  ;  and  for  the  remainder  out  of 
feveral  other  infpired  writers.  We  m.ay  boldly  af- 
firm that  this  collection  was  made  by  the  prophet 
Ifaiah,  by  Hclcias,  or  as  you  fay,  by  Sobna,  Eli- 
akim,  Joachim,  &c.  under  the  reign  of  the  pious 
kinp-  Hezekiah.  We  fee  nothing  in  all  this  but  truth, 
or  at  lealt  probability,  nothing  but  what  your  readers 
might  learn,  and  which  you  have  very  probably 
learned  yourfelf  in  Don  Calmct's  comment. 

But  you  go  a  ftep  farther  ;  you  undertake  to  prove 
that  this  work  is  unworthy  of  Solomon,  and  that  ir 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  42^ 

was  compofed  in  Alexandria.     Let  us  now  fee,  fir, 
your  foundation  for  thefe  two  aflertions. 

§    I .     Whether   the  book   of  proverbs  is  a  work  un- 
worthy of  SoloiUQn, 

You  begin  in  thefe  terms. 

Text.     "  this   work   is  a  colleftion  of  trivial, 

low,    incoherent    maxims,   without  tafte,  choice 

or  defign."  [Philofoph.  Dia.) 
Comment.  A  coliedion  of  low,  trivial,  incdhe* 
rent  maxims.  But  firft,  altho'  fome  two  or  three  fen- 
tences,  which  you  quote,  were  low,  what  coiiclu- 
fion  could  you  draw  from  thefe  againil  fo  many 
others  ?  Can  one  judge  of  fuch  a  work,  as  he  would 
of  a  piece  of  Itulf,  by  a  pattern  ''  If  we  were  to  judge 
in  the  fame  manner  of  your  works,  if  we  were  to  quote  . 
fome  bad  lines,  fome  fiat  jefts,  and  thence  conclude 
that  the  whole  is  unworthy  of  a  great  poet  and 
an  excellent  writer,  would  you  think  this  fair  deal- 
ing, 

Bifides,  what  may  appear  low  and  trivial  to  fome 
perfons  in  certain  languages,  and  certain  times  and 
countries,  may  very  pofTibly  not  have  appeared  fo  in 
other  countries,  times  and  languages.  Very  little 
reading  will  convince  us  of  this.  Homer  alone  can 
fupply  us  with  many  fuch  inifances.  How  many 
thoughts,  images,  and  defcriptions  are  there,  which. 
in  his  time  and  language  were  noble  and  elegant, 
but  would  now  appear  low  in  yours  !  But  ancient 
writers  are  not  to  be  tried  by  your  language  and  man- 
ners, but  by  their  own  language,  by  the  cuftoms  and 
manners  of  thofe  ages  and  countries  in  which  they  liv- 
ed. We  have  often  faid  this,  and  youyourfelf  have 
often  repeated  it  ! 

In  (hort,  fir,  men  of  tafle,  writers  who  were  judges 
of  ll:yle,  and  who  had  the  advantage  of  being  able 
to  read  the  book  of  Proverbs  in  the  orio^inal,  have 
given  a  very  different  opinion  of  it.  Thef^'  maxims, 
in  wliich  you  can  find  nothing  but  what  is  low  and  tri- 
vial, feeiii  to  them  to  be  written  with  a  poignant  pre^ 

31 


^3o  A      S     H    O     R    T 

cifion,  in  a  pure  and  elegant  ftyle,  and  adorned  with 
fuch  fentiments,  images,  and  comparifons,  as  were 
proper  for  fixing  them  in  the  minds  of  thofe  readers, 
for  whofe  inftrudlion  they  were  intended.  Fenelon 
and  BofTuet  have  paflbd  this  judgment  on  it  ;  and 
if  you  want  foreign  authorities,  Louth  and  Michaelis, 

..^      criticks  whofe  tafte  and  learning  you  cannot  objecl  to, 

'^       are  of  the  fame  opinion. 

T/;efe  maxims  arc  incoherent.  A  fine  difcovery  in- 
deed, and  juft  grounds  for  cenfure  !  Surely  every 
one  knows  that  in  this  work,  efpeciaily  after  the 
nine  firfl  chapters,  the  didadick  order  is  not  obferv- 
^^d,  and  that  we  find  in  it  no.divifions,  definitions, 
jLrgumcntations,  in  fhort  no  logical  method.  But 
■was  this  needtul  ?  Solomon  did  not  propofe  to  write 
a  dryi  cold  Philofophical  treatife  ;  he  was  writing 
for  young  people  of  both  fexes,  who  love  variety, 
and  are  fooner  taken  by  detached  thoughts  which 
flrike  them,  than  by  long-winded  tedious  reafon- 
ijogs. 

You  find  thefe  maxims  incoherent ;  but  do  you  fee^ 
more  coherence  in  the  fentences  of  Theognis,  Plio- 
cylides,  <Gato,  Pubiius  Syrus,  5cc.  ?  And  have  you 
lefs  value  for  thefe  compofitions,  or  do  you  tliink 
them  unworthy  of  their  authors,  becaufe  they  were 
written  without  method,    or  colIe<5led  by   chance? 

Maxi?ns  without  choice ^  tajle  or  clepign.  It  is  trua 
they  are  not  written  in  the  tafte  of  certain  modern 
thoughts  ;  but  is  this  modern  tafte  the  true  one  ? 
And  is  it  fo  exclufively  to  all  others  ?  Solomon's 
thoughts  ;  arc  neither  epigrammatical  nor  high 
flown  ;  he  does  not  alfume  the  tone  of  cWi  ora- 
cle, nor  wrap  himfclf  up  in  the  darkncfs  of  ambi- 
guous diilion.  Was  it  his  duty  to  do  fo  ?  His 
objcdl  was  to  inftruct,  and  he  knew  that  perplexity 
and  obfcurity  are  enemies  to  inftrudion. 

As  to  the  want  of  defign,  which  you  charge  this 
work  with,  altho*  all  its  parts  are  not  conneded  by  a 
regular  and  uniform  plan,  yet  a  common  obje^ft  urates 


CO  MM  E  N  T  A  R'- Y.  431 

fhem,  and  this  objedl,  furely  wortliy  of  a  wife  and 
great  prince,  is  fo  clear,  that  it  cannot  be  overlooked  ; 
it  is  to  train  up  his  youhg  readers  to  piety,  prudence, 
an  exa6t  obfervance  of  every  duty,  in  a  word  to  inflil 
the  fear  ofGod  into  them, and  to  lead  them  to  happinefs 
by  virtue  ;  and  in  the  midit  of  thefe  great  views,  you 
come  and  cavil  about  the  want  of  regularity  in  ths 
plan,  as  if  you  did  know  that  this  fort  of  regularity^ 
fo  much  cried  up  by  the  moderns,  vvas  for  a  Iong_ 
time  neglected  by  the  ancient  moral  poets,  even  the 
Romans  and  the  Greeks. 

You  mufi  allow,  fir,  that  there  is  much  fhaU, 
lownefs,  and  very  little  folidity  in  all  thefe  objecti- 
ons. 

But  here  follows  fomething  more  ferious. 

Text.  ,  "  We  find  v/hole  chapters  which  fpeak 
"  of  nothing"  but  of  ftrumpets,  who  invite  paffen- 
*'  gers  to  lie  with  them.''  Would  Solomon  have 
"  laid   fo  much  of  the  proftitute  ?"     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Why  not  fpeak  of  the  proflitute  ? 
He  does  it  to  warn  men  againft  her  wilds,  to  point 
out  the  fhameful  and  pernicious  confequences  of  for- 
nication, and  to  deter  young  men  from  plunginc^' 
into  that  abyfs.  Is  this  a  deiign  unworthy  of  the 
wife  ? 

Text.  "  Can  we  conceive  that  a  learned  mo- 
"  narch  could  write  a  colietlion  of  maxims,  a- 
"  mongft  which  there  cannot  be  found  one  that  re- 
"  fpects  the  manner  of  governing,  politicks,  the 
"  cuftoms  of  a  court,  the  character  of  courtiers  ?** 
(Ibidem.) 

Comment,  We  might  previoufly  anfwer  you, 
fir,  that  as  Solomon  wrote  many  books,  he  perh'^ns 
treated  in  fome  other  one  of  politicks,  the  cuflorns 
of  a  court,  the  character  of  courtiers  ;  that  there- 
fore it  would  have  been  needlels  to  repeat  the  fame 
things  in  this  one  ;  that  his  fole  object  here  was  to- 
glve  fome  general  precepts  to  youth  of  virtue  and 
wifdom,  and  that  according  to  this  plan  it  was  uhrie- 
ceilary  for  him  to  fpeak  of  politicks  and  govermiient  j 


43« 


SHORT 


we  cannot  fee  how  you  could  reafonably  objed  to  this 
anfwer. 

But  is  it  very  certain  that  in  this  colledlion  of  fen- 
tences,  there  is  not  really  one  which  refpedls  govern- 
ment, politicks,  &c  ?  You  affirm. it,  fir,  and  we  will 
venture  to  deny  it.  Of  what  kind  are  the  following 
maxims.  When  the  righteous  are  in  authority,  the  peo- 
ple rejoice,  but  when  the  -wicked  beareih  rule,  the  peo- 
ple mourn,  Righteoufnefs  exalteth  a  nation.  The  king 
by  judgment  ejiablijheth  the  land,  but  he  that  receivetb 
gifts  overt hroweth  it.  Take  azvay  the  ivicked  from  be-- 
fore  the  king,  and  his  throne Jhall  be  ejlablifhed  in  righ- 
teoufnefs. In  the  tnultitude  of  the  people  is  the  king's 
glory.  The  prince  that  wanteth  unaerjlanding,  is  alfo 
a  great  oppreffor.  If  a  rider  hearken  to  lies  all  his  fer- 
*vants  are  wicked ;  that  is,  they  are  unjuft,  void  ;.f 
truth,  enemies  to  the  pubiick  good  ?  Do  not  thefq 
maxims  refpeft  themanner  of  governing  ? 

'1  he  eloquent  BolTuet  has  made  this  remark  in 
that  noble  prei^ce  which  is  at  the  head  of  his  work 
on  the  book  of  Proverbs.  "  We  find,  he  fays,  Co 
*'  many  fage  maxims  of  policy  and  government  in 
*'  this  book,  that  we  eafily  difcover  in  it  the  wifdom 
*'  of  a  king  highly  accomplifhed  in  the  art  of  go- 
*'  verning.**  You  fee,  fir,  this  is  quite  the  contra- 
ry of  what  you  fay.  Whence  then  this  oppofition 
between  you  and  this  learned  prelate  ?  It  proceeds 
from  this,  that  Bofluet  fpeaks  of  this  work,  after 
having  fludied  it,  and  you  fpeak  of  it  probably  v/ith- 
out  having  read  it,  or  at  lead  after  having  read  it 
with  fo  much  hade  and  negligence,  that  you  do  not 
even  know  the  contents  of  it.  And  is  it  after  fuch 
a  fuperficial  perufal,  that  you  take  upon  you  to  de- 
cide whether  it  is  wortliy  or  unworthy  of  Solomon  ? 
Really,  fir,  you  are  a  very  extraordinary  critick  ! 

§  2.  Whether  the  book  of  Proverbs  was  ccmpofed  in 
Alexandria. 

But  perhaps  you  may  have  better  fuccefs  in  prov- 
ing that  the  book  of  Proverbs  was  compofed  in  Alex- 
andria. 


tt 
a 


G  O  MM  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  433 

Text.  "  Would  Solomon  have  faid,  look  not  on* 
the  wine  when  it  appears  clear  and  fparkles  in  th(; 
glafs  ?    I    very    mucli  doubt   whether  ihey  had 
drinking  glalTes  in  Solomon's  time  ;  it   is  a  very- 
late   invention,  and  this  very  pafTage  fliews    that 
this  Jewifh  rhapfody,  as  well  as  many  other  Jewifli 
"  books,  was  compofed  in  Alexandria."    (Ibidem.') 
■   Comment.  Pardon  us,  fir,  if  we  fay  that  here  is 
a  gi"eat  deal  of  learning  thrown  away. 

Ill,  If  it  is  certain  that  the  invention  of  drinkincr 
glalfes  is  of  very  late  date,  and  that  they  were  firfl 
known  in  Ale:j^andria,  it  is  not  fufficient  to  doubt 
whether  they  had  drinking  glaffes  in  Solomon's  time, 
for  they  certainly  had  none  ;   you  know  it  well. 

2dly,  But  what  would  you  think  if,  merely  to 
puzzle  you,  we  (hould  maintain,  that  you  have  no 
certainty  that  drinking  glaffes  were  firft  known  in 
Alexandria  ?  And  really,  fir,  this  affertion  would 
hot  be  altogether  ungrounded.  We  could  tell  you, 
that  akho'  learned  men  have  held,  that  the  transpar- 
ent cups  or  bowls,  which  the  Greek  ambaffadors  faw 
at  the  Perfian  court,  a  long  time  before  Alexander, 
■were  of  amber  or  porcelain,  yet  others  have  main- 
tained, that  they  were  of  glafs  ;  that  glafs,  according 
to  the  account  of  many  (i)  ancient  v/ritcrs,  Pliny, 
Tacitus,  &:c.  was  invented  in  Palefline,  on  the  bor- 

(l)  Ancient  ivriters .  Moft  ancient  writers  afcribe  the  invention  of  glifg 
to  au  happy  chance  ;  they  tell  us  that  fome  nierchaiits  who  dealt  in  nitre, 
havinji  gone  on  fhore  on  the  banks  of  the  river  Bclus,  and  being  willing  tu 
drcfs  their  food,  for  want  of  ftones,  ufid  large  pieces  of  nitre  to  fupport  their 
■woodand  their  pots  ,  that  this  nitre  havin{_r  taken  fire  dillolved  itfelf  in  the 
fan.l,  and  thus  formed  the  firft  glafs.  This  is  nearly  the  fareic  account  that 
Pliny  gives.     \ao    36.  chap.   26. 

Fania  eft,  (fays  he  j {leaking  of  the  r!-v;r  Beius,)  appulfa  navi  mercafornm  ni-. 
tri,  cum  fparfi  per  littus  epulas  pararent,  nee  effet  cortini^  attollendi^  lapiduni 
occafio,  glshas  nitri  c  novi  fubdt<liire,  quibus  accenfia,  pcrnnixta  arena,  tranl- 
lucentes  novi  liquorii  fluxiCTe  rivos,  &  banc  fuifTc  originem  vitri. 

Tacitus  aifo  fpeaks  of  the  glafs  houfcs  of  the  biclonicin",  and  of  the  fands  of 
Belus.     Et  Belus  animis,  (fays  he)  Judaico  illabitnr  mari  circa  cujus  os  col- 

levlx  arensE,  adniitto  nitro,  in  vitrum  incoqunntur. Sidcn  artifex  vitri, 

vitriariis  oiiicinis  nobilis.     Hiftory  liber,  5th,  &c. 

It  Wis  believed  for  a  long  time,  that  glais  could  not  be  made  without  t'le 
fands  of  Belus.  According  to  Jofephus,  veffcls  were  to  have  been  frcigii.'ed 
with  it.  This  falfe  fuppofition,  which  it  was  the  intercft  of  the  lyrians  and 
Sidijuiajjj  to  encourage,  made  glafs  for  a  lypj  time  exceedingly  d«ar.     £Jit. 


434 


SHORT 


ders  of  the  river  Belus ;  that  the  firfl:  materials  ufed 
for  making  it,  were  the  fands  of  this  river,  which 
flows  at  the  foot  of  mount  Carmel,  in  one  of  our 
tribes  ;  that  Ifaiah  fpeaks  of  it,  Ezeiviel  alludes  to  it  ; 
that  even  in  Solomon's  time  they  made  inlaid  floors 
of  it  in  the  Mofaick  way ;  and  that  to  go  up  dill 
higher,  it  was  not  unknown  in  the  days  of  Mofes  and> 
Job,  &x.  If  it  was  needful,  proofs  at  leaft  plaufible, 
(i)  ofallthefeafTertions  might  be  produced  to  you. 

3dly)  It  is  not  neceffary  to  enter  into  fuch  deep  en- 
quiries, to  overturn  vour  argument  ;  one  refledion 
fuffices,  and  it  is  this;,  your  argument  fuppofes,  that' 
in  the  original  text,  a  drinking  glafs  is  meant,  a  cup 
or  bov/1  of  glafs.  Now  altho'  the  French  tranilations 
and  the  vulgate,  have  rendered  the  Hebrew  word 
by  glafs,  J tX.  this  word  fignifies  neither  a  drinking 
glafs  nor  a  cup  of  glafs,  but  a  cup  or  bowl  of  any 
fubflance.  Therefore  your  pretended  demonftra- 
tion  amounts  to  this  ;  "  The  French  tranilations 
and  the  vulgate  render  this  pafTage  by  glafs  ;  now 
drinking  giafles  were  firfl  knov/n  in  Alexandria, 
"  therefore  the  Hebrew  text,  which  does  not  fpeak 
*''  of  glafs,  was  compofed  in  Alexandria.**  Thus 
from  French  and  Latin  tranflations  vifhich  fpeak  of 
glafs,  you  draw  a  conclufion  againfl  the  Hebrew- 
text  which  does  not  mention  it.  Did  any  one  ever 
reafon  thus,  fir  ?  See  what  danger  there  is  in  play- 
ing thecritick  on  a  work  without  infpeding  the  ori- 
ginal, or  without  underftandingit. 

(i)  Of  all  thefc  njfertions.  See  thc  learned  DifTertation  ef  Mr.  Michaelis, 
•vol.  III.  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  Academy  of  Gottingen,  on  tlic  afiitiqnity  of 
glafs  among  the  Hebrews.  He  obfcrves  in  it,  that  Eztkicl  pl.-.ces  afca  of 
glafs  under  the  throne  of  God,  in  allufion  to  that  magniticeii;  fea  of  glafs, 
with  which  the  place  was  paved  where  Solomon  placed  hii  throne  ;  that  Ifai- 
ah, fpeaking  of  the  city  of  lyre,  and  Mofes,  of  the  tribes  of  llTachar  and  of 
Zabulon,  boaft  of  tie  treafares  bidden  in  ibc  J'andi  of.thtirjheres  ;  by  which  he 
underftands, with  the  Caldaick  interpreters,  Jonathan,  Solomon  Ben-lfaac, 
Le  Clerc,  £cc.  thc  wealth  which  would  flow  into  them  from  the  manufac- 
ture* of  glafs,  in  which  they  ufed  the  fands  of  the  river  Belus.  Lraftly,  that 
thc  words  Zajj  and  Zaijuchit,  vfhich  are  loimd  in  Mofes  and  Job,  are  ren- 
dered in  all  thc  orieaul  vcrfiynii,  by   a  word  which  fignifies  io  thofo  laii- 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  435 

We  had  gone  fo  far,  when  upon  comparing  the 
BiftionairePhilofophique,  with  the  Raifon  par  Al- 
phabet, we  found  thefe  words  at  the  bottom  of  the 

Text.  "  A  certain  pedant  thinks  he  has  difcd- 
"  vered  an  error  in  this  paflage  ;  he  pretends  that 
*'  we  have  ill  tranflated  by  the  word  glafs  a  goblet, 
**  which  was,  he  fays,  of  wood  or  metal."  (Raifon 
par  Alphabet.) 

Comment.  A  certain  -pedant  !  We  are  not  ac- 
quainted with  this  author  or  w^ith  his  work  ;  but  to 
judge  of  him  merely  by  what  you  fay,  we  cannot 
but  fuppofe  him  a  man  of  learning,  who  does  not 
tranilate  from  the  vulgate,  but  confults  and  under- 
flands  the  text. 

A  certain  pedant.  They  fay  that  in  your  language 
this  is  a  word  of  abufe.  The  abufive  (lyle  is  a  bad 
one.  We  are  forry  to  fee  you  falling  into  it  fo  often. 
PraSife  as  you  preach,  fir.  Subftitute  at  lafl  good 
reafons  in  the  place  of  inveclives. 

A  certain  pedant  thought.  No,  fir,  he  did  not 
think  he  had  found  it,  for  he  really  found  it  ;  and  it 
is  not  a  flight  miftake,  but  a  grofs  blunder.  It  is  a 
misfortune,  that  a  pedant  Ihould  be  right,  and  Mr. 
Voltaire  wrong  !  And  yet  this  little  accident  has  of- 
ten happened  to  you. 

He  pretends  thai  we  have  ill  tranjlated^  ^V.  Ra- 
ther he  has  demonflrated  it,  and  you  have  no  rea- 
fonable  anfwer  to  make.     And  yet  you  reply  ; 

Text.  "  How  could  the  wine  fparkle  in  a 
"  goblet  of  metal  or  wood  ?  And  befides,  what  mat- 
"  ter  ? 

Comment.  Are  not  you  aware,  fir,  that  by  this 
affertion  you  affirm,  that  no  ancient  people  could  tell 
whether  their  wine  fparkled  or  was  bright  ?  For  ac- 
-  cording  to  you,  they  drank  out  01  cups  of  wood  or 
metal.  And  do  you  think,  fir,  that  even  your  co- 
temporaries,  who  drink  out  of  golden  goblets  or  fil- 
ver  cups,  cannot  diftinguifh  whether  their  wine  is 
bright  and  fparkles. 


43^  A       SHORT 

:'    And  bcfides  what   matter  ?     Certainly  we   are  as 
indifferent  about  this  matter  as  you   .••re  ;  but    we 

ithink  that  this  fali'e  tranllation  of  the  Hebrew  word 
is  of  fome  confequencc  to  you,  for  if  the  word  does 

.not    fignify    glcifs^    your    pretended   demonftration 
dwindles  into   an  argument  equally  falfe  and  riciicii- 

,lous.     Perhaps  you  are  very  indifferent  about'  ibis 

.matter,  and  fo  are  we.     In  truth,  what  matter  ? 

No,  fir,  it  matters  not  to  us.  We  know  at  lail 
your  fecret,  fir,  you  have  difcloTed  it,  and  it  has 
reached  us.  Abbe^  I  mujlbe  read^  no  matter  whether 
J atn  believed ?  Is  this  then  your  motto,  fir?  May 
it  at  lafl  be  known  to  all  thole  who  read  you,  and 
are  kind  enough  to  believe  you !  Had  vve  known 
this  fecret  fooner,  we  might  have  faved  ourfelves  the 
trouble  of  writing.  This  motto  fliould  be  placed  at 
the  head  of  your  works. 

TWELFTH       EXTRACT. 

Of  Solomon^  the  Je quel.     Calculation  of  his  riches^  his  . 

horfes,  Isfc. 
There  are  no  difficulties  which  you  propofe  a- 
painfl:  our  facred  writings  with  greater  confidence, 
than  thofe  which  you  take  from  fome  calculations 
that  may  be  found  in  them.  And  yet  thefe  difficul- 
ties are  neither  new  nor  unanfwerable.  You  have 
not  been  at  great  trouble  to  find  them  out  ;  you 
have  not  been  obliged  to  turn  over  the  leaves  of 
Woolfton  and  Toland,  Bolingbroke  and  Collins,  &c. 
Two  or  three  commentators,  perhaps  Calmet  alone, 
your  old  mafter,  fupplied  you  with  them.  All  you 
had  to  do  was  juft  to  copy  them  over,  to  feafon  them 
with  fome  llrokes  of  humour,  and  to  fupprefs  tire 
anfwers.  And  this  is  really  all  you  have  done  in 
treating  of  the  riches  of  Solomon,  of  liis  horfcs,  &c. 
,&c.  in  your  Philofophical  Dictionary,  and  in  other 
pktces.  We  propofe  to  be  more  impartial,  fir  ;  for 
we  will  produce  the  anfwers  without  attempting  in 
any  degree  to  weaken  the  difficulties. 


(c 


COMMENTARY.  437 

§  I.  Of  the  wealth  left  to  Solomon  by  David. 
Text.  "  David,  whofe  predecefTor  had  not 
*'  even  iron,  left  his  fon  Solomon  twenty-five  thou- 
*'  fand  fix  hundred  forty-eight  millions  of  livres  in. 
*'  fpecie,  according  to  our  common  computation* 
(]\Ielanges.) 

Could  Solomon  be  fo  rich  as  is  faid  ?  (i)  the 
Chronicles  alTure  us  thaf  the  f  Melk  David  his 
"  father,  left  him  (2)  about  twenty  thoufand  mil- 
*'  lions  of  our  money,  according  to  the  common 
*'  computation,  and  the  moft  moderate  calculation. 
*'  There  is  not  fo  much  ready  money  on  the  face  of 
*'  the  earth  ;  and  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how  David 
"  could  lay  up  fuch  a  treafure  in  the  fmall  country 
*'  of  Paleftine  r''     (Didlon.  Phil.) 

Comment.  We  fhall  firft  obferve  that//2  the  Me* 
ianges,  the  fum  left  to  Solomon  by  David  amounts 
to  twenty-five  thoufand  fix  hundred  forty-eight  mil- 
lions, and  that  in  the  Diclienary  it  am.ounts  only  to 
about  twenty  thoufand  millions.  There  is  there- 
fore in  this  latter  account  an  abatement  of  five  thou- 
fand fix  hundred  forty-eight  millions  of  livres  ;  this 
difference  deferves  well  to  be  noted  ;  a  fifth  more 
or  lefs  is  a  confiderable  thing  in  a  fum. 

We  are  told  that  in  this  lad  account  the  mod  mo- 
derate calculations  is  followed.  This  is  a  proof  that 
the  former  one  was  not  very  moderate.  It  is  alfo  a 
proof  that  all  thefe  calculations  are  (3)  not  of  indif* 
putable  evidence. 

But  fuppofe  your  valuations  were  juft,  altho*  this 
might  be  difputed  5  we  will  grant  too,  that  you  have 

3  K 

(l)  "Tb:  Chrtnidss.  Here  follows  the  text  according  to  the  vulgatc,  Ecceeat 
in paulertuU  mea pntparwj'i  impinfas  dom'us  domhi  auri  taltntj  antum  millh,  l^ 
srr^nli  m'ltlia  talentorum.  Chronicles  chap.  22.  v.  14.  Ai.t. 
'1  Mclk  fignifies a  petty  king. 
-  (2)  Aiout  tivcnty  tk<juj and  millions.  In  the  Trcatife  on  Toleration,  Mr, 
Vo'tairc  reduces  the  ftims  left  by  David  to  nineteen  tlMufand  and  lixty-two 
mil  ion?,  altho'  he  includci  in  uxa  the  fums  which  thi?  prince's  ofticsrs  con- 
in'^utiid  towards  the  couftruCtion  of  the  teiiip'ie.  •  All  thefc  variations  cvi« 
dentiy  fhtw  that  thefe  calculations  are  uncertain.     A't. 

(3)   No' of  iiidifpulaltle  evidence.     For   this  rcafon  Calniet    niakes   the  fum 
IcIl  by  Divid  aaiouat  ouly  to  ib.ou:  f.vsive  thoufand  uiillious.     Aut, 


43S  A      S    H     0     R    T 

a  perfe£l  knowledge  of  the  exaft  value  of  thofe  ta- 
lents of  which  the  Yulgatefpeaks  in  this  place,  which 
is  doubtful ;  let  us  grant  you  all  this,  fir,  and  what 
will  follow,  that  ic  is  incredible  that  David  could 
leave  fuch  a  fum  to  his  Ion  ?  But  who  obliges  you  t6 
believe  it  ? 

Thefe  twenty  thoufand  millions  appear  to  you  an 
enormous,  an  exorbitant  fum.  You  are  right,  and 
we  join  you  in  opinion  ;  fuch  a  fum  would  fuffice  to 
build  a  temple  of  (i)  mafly  filver  ;  at  Icafl  it  would 
fuffice  to  build  feveral  hundreds  of  temples  fuch  as 
that  of  Solomon,  efpecially  if  it  was  fuch  a  temple 
as  you  reprefent  it. 

But  obferve,  fir,  that  the  grofler  the  miftake  is,  and 
the  more  glaring  the  abfurdity,  the  lefs  likely  it  is 
that  it  fhould  come  from  an  author  to  whom  one 
cannot  but  grant,  if  not  infpiration,  yet  at  leaft  fome 
knowledge.  Is  it  probable  that  a  fenfible  writer 
could  make  David  fay,  (a  prince  whofe  predeceflbr 
he  knew  as  well  as  you  had  not  iron,)  that  he  had 
laid  up  according  to  his  poverty  twenty  thoufand." 
millions  in  fpccie,  that  is,  according  to  yourfelf, 
more  ready  money  than  there  is  in  the  whole  world  f 

When  fuch  evident  miftakes,  with  regard  to  num- 
bers, are  found  in  profane  writers,  they  are   general- 
ly not  charged  with  them,  if  they  are  known  to  have 
been  authors   of   the  leaft  knowledge  or   veracity. 
Every  critick  will  in  this  cafe  think  it  his  duty  to  af- 
cribe  them  rather   to    the  negleft  or  inattention  of 
the  copier,  than  to  the  (2)  (lupid  weaknefs  of  the 
writer.     And  why  would  you  not  practice  the  fame 
equity,  and  follow  the  fame  rules  with  refpcd  to  our- 
facred  writers  ? 

(i)  Of  rri'ijfy  f'li'fr.  And  yet  as  Mr.  VoUaire  cbfcrves  tMs  fum  left  ^y  Da- 
vid, was  not  fufticicnt  for  Solomon,  who  was  obliged  to  bcrrow  gold  from 
Hiram  befidts.     .A'll- 

(2)  Htup'ui  tveaknef,  nf  d'i  tvTileri.  Thcfe  miflal^es  may  be  foi:nd  nof  on- 
Iv  in  ancitiit  writers,  whofc  works  have  been  fo  cht-i«  copied  over,  (tut  even 
in  the  mod  celebrated  modern  wr  ters  Bafiinjjc  fuii-iies  us  with  uii  e.xtra- 
ordinsry  inftatice  of  this.  Ft  is  faid  in  his  Hiftory  ol'  the  Jews,  that  the  Spa- 
niih  Jews  ujuii  their  cxpulfion,  carried  away  with  them  thirty  thoufand 


COMMENTARY.  43^ 

You  are  ftill  more  ftrongly  bound  to  this,  becaufc 
probably  the  copiers  fonietimes  ufed  letters,  accord- 
ing to  our  cuftom,  in  Heu  of  numerical  figures,  to 
denote  numbers,  and  that  the  Hebrew  letters  accord- 
ing to  you  (i)  are  eafily  confounded. 

What  then  does  your  objedion  prove  ?  This  at 
moft,  that  the  copiers  have  made  a  miftake  in  this 
text  of  the  Chronicles.  But  who  fays  that  there  have 
not  been  millakes  in  our  facred  writings  ?  Every  bo- 
dy allows  it,  and  you  have  loll  much  time  in  proving 
what  (2)  nobody  doubts. 

With  refpea  to  the  reft,  fir,  in  the  time  of  David, 
as  well  as  now,  it  was  ufual  for  the  monarchs  of  Afia 
to  lay  up  treafures  againft  the  time  of  need,  or  for  the 
purpofe  of  executing  fome  plan  then  in  profped. 
They  were  unacquainted  with  (3)  the  new  principle 
of  modern  governments,  that  it  is  better  for  princes 
to  be  poor,  and  to  let  all  the  ready  money  circulate 
thro'  the  nation.  Therefore  it  is  not  furprifing, 
that  as  David  had  long  formed  the  defign  of  building 

mniJons  of  ducats !  This  is  written  in  letters,  not  numhers,  and  is  not  corrccft- 
ed  >n  the  errata;  would  any  reafonablc  maH  im^oute  this  exaggeration  to 
Balingc  rather  than  to  his  Dutch  printers  ?     Edit. 

(1)  /Jr..  capiy  confounded.  We  might  add,  in  order  to  fhcvv  that  this  is 
a  miaake  of  the  cop„rrs,  ift,  That  in  this  part  of  the  Hebrew  text,  the 
grammat.cal  conftrua.on  .s  very  irreguhr.  or  at  Icaft  extraordinary.     Lily 

I  hat  .n  the  Arabick  vcrf.on,  they  reckon  one  thoufand  talents  of  /old,  and 
onethoufandofiuver,  which  fliews  that  there  is  a  different  reading  in  the 
Arab.an  tranUator  s  manufcript,  fr»ai  the  mannfcript  which  the  author  of 
the  vu  Kate  ufed.  ^nd  this  g.vcs  room  manifdtiy  for  fufpedin-  an  altera- 
tioninboth   manufcnpts.     Edit.  r         <, 

(2)  Nuiody  doubts.  Mr.  Voltaire  himfelf  could  not  help  allowing  this  in 
his  Freatifc  of  Toleration.      See  page  ij;  .      Aut. 

(.3)  rZv  nc-.v  p  incipU  The  contrary  principle  was  that  of  Sixtus  Qi.intus. 
and  Henry  the  IV.  whofe  views  were  certainly  as  wife  a.  thole  of  o^r  mo- 
dcrn  political  cEconomitts  This  principle  was  alfo  adopted  by  the  late  kmff 
of  Prulha.      1  he  prelent  km^r  iag  profited  well  by  it. 

It  would  perhaps  be  a  fubjecl  not  unworthy  the  enquiries  of  th«  learned,  to 
inveHigAte  whether  there  was  not  in  ancient  times  as  much  geld  and  f.lver  in 
proportion  m  the  world  as  there  is  now.  It  fcems  that  their  poffefTing  in  an- 
cicnt  times  fo  m.ny  golden  fands,  fo  many  nvcrs  which  rolled  gold,  (o  many 
mines  which  they  found  out  and  worked,  might  render  the  queftion  at  lea/l 
problematical.  It  is  impofiibU  to  read  Don  Calmet's  djITcrtation  on  the 
texts  which  wc  are  examining,  without  confeffing  that  in  thofc  anci«nt 
times    kings,  temples,  and    certain  cities,   n>uft  have   been  am^zin-rly  rich. 

a  Voltaire  obkrvcs  himfelf  in  liis  Treatife  of  Toleration,  th,.t  the  r.a.ler 
IS  alloniihed  at  the  riches  which  Herodotus  fayshcfawin  the  temple  of  '•- 
paclus.     But  dacb  thie  aftoni.'hment  cntitk  us  to  deny  the  fad  .'     Ed\u 


440  A      S    H     O     R    T 

a  fiiperb  temple  for  the  Lord,  during  many  years  of 
a  profperous  reign,  after  fo  many  victories  gained  o- 
ver  fo  many  nations,  from  whom  he  had  carried  off 
rich  fpoils,  he  fhould  have  been  able  to  lay  up,  and 
leave  to  his  fon  confiderable  fums.  For  notwith- 
ftanding  what  you  fay,  fir,  this  Melk  David  was  not 
a  petty  king,  but  a  powerful  monarch.  And  when 
you  circumfcribe  his  dominions,  within  the  fmall 
country  of  Paleftine,  you  wifh  to  forget  that  this  vic- 
torious prince  had  fubdued  many  neighbouring  na- 
tions, and  extended  his  dominions  from  the  Euphra- 
tes to  Efiongeber,  and  from  Efiongeber  to  Egypt. 
This  w^as  fomething  more  than  the  fmall  country  of 
Paleftine. 

§  2.  Of  Solomo}i*s  Horfes. 

Text.  "  Solomon  had  forty  thoufand  ftables, 
*'  and  fo  many  coach  houfes  for  his  chariots,  twelve 
*'  thoufand  ftiables  for  his  faddle  horfes,  &c.  Com- 
*'  mentators  confefs  that  thefe  fa6ls  want  explana- 
"  tion,  and  fufpeft  that  the  copiers  have  committed 
*'  fome  errors  in  the  numerical  figures."  (Melan- 
ges, Vol.   5th  of  the  Geneva  edition,  chap,    ift.) 

'*  Solomon,  according  to  the  third  book  of  Kings, 
"  had  forty  thoufand  Itables  for  the  horfes  of  his 
*'  chariots  ;  fuppofe  each  ftable  contained  but  ten 
*'  horfes,  this  would  have  made  up  the  number  of 
"  four  hundred  thoufand  horfes,  which  added  to  his 
*'  twelve  thoufand  faddle  horfes,  makes  up  four 
*'  hundred  and  twelve  thoufand  war  horfes.  This 
"  is  a  great  deal  for  a  Jewifh  Melk,  who  never  wa- 
*'  ged  war.  There  are  fewinftances  offuch  magnifi- 
*'  cencc  in  a  country  which  feeds  nothing  but  aiTes, 
**  and  in  which  there  are  at  this  time  no  other  beads 
*'  of  burthen ;  but  probllj^ly  times  are  changed.'* 
(Philof.  Dictionary,  article  Solomon.) 

Comment.  Elcre  is  a  great  deal  of  humour  ;  but 

fhall  we  not  have  reafon  to  laugh  a  little  at  the  jcf- 

ter,  when  it  fhall  appear  that  he  tranflates  this  paffage 

of  the  third  book  of  Kings  from  the  Latin  of  the 

A^ulgatc,  and  that  even  this  very  Latin  he  docs  not, 


CO  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  441 

or  will  not  underftand,  as  he  fpeaks  of  coach-honfes 
which  no  body  can  find  in  it,  and  takes  (tables  for 
horfes,  &c.  This  is  jud  what  yo  do,  fir. 

You  tranflate  from  the  Vulj^ate,  fir  ;  this  is  evi- 
dent, and  this  is  wrong  ;  for  when  we  criticife  an 
author,  it  is  not  fair  to  form  a  judgment  of  him  by 
a  bad  tranflation  ;  now  fuch  is  the  Vulgate  accord- 
ing to  your  own  confefiion. 

But  even  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate,  fir,  you  do 
not  under  (land.  We  read  there  in  the  third  book  of 
Kings,  chap.  4.  verfe  25.  Et  habebat  Solomon 
quadraginta  millia  prccfepia  equorum  currilium,  & 
duodecim  millia  equeftrium.  This  is  not  Cicero's 
or  Livy's  Latin  ;  it  is  what  you  call  fomewhere,  bar- 
barous Latin  ;  and  yet  it  is  not  altogether  unintel- 
ligible. We  can  plainly  fee  in  this  palTage,  that  So- 
lomon had  forty  thoufand  (tables  for  the  horfes  of 
his  chariots  ;  but  notwithflanding  all  our  pains,  we 
cannot  find  the  fame  number  of  coach-houfes.  You 
added,  fir,  thefe  forty  thoufand  coach-houfes  ;  there 
appears  not  the  lead  trace  of  them,  either  in  the 
Latin  or  the  Hebrew  ;  to  you  only  Solomon  is  in- 
debted for  them. 

This  is  odd  enough  ;  but  this  is  not  all  ;  you 
are  not  more  fuccefsful  in  tranfiating  the  remainder 
of  the  paffage,  &  duodecim  millia  equedrium. 
Thefe  words  fignify,  according  to  you,  in  your 
Melanges,  twelve  thoufand  (tables,  and  according  to 
you  again,  in  the  Philofophical  Dictionary,  twelve 
thoufand  horfes.  Is  net  this,  fir,  taking  (tables  for 
horfes,  or  horfes  for  (tables. 

Now  if  wc  fuppofe  with  you,  that  thefe  twelve 
thoufand  (tables,  in  the  Melanges,  contained  each 
ten  horfes,  we  (hall  have  the  fum  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  thoufand  faddle-horfes,  which  added  to 
four  hundred  thoufand  charlot-horfes,  will  make  up 
five  hundred  and  twenty  thoufand  vv-ar-horfes  ;  now 
this  calculation  (i)  differs  fomcwhat  from  that  in 
the  Philofophical  Dictionary. 

(i)  D'lf.'rs  forr.i^vh,-!'..     This  cnntradiclion  is  fl'glit  ;  the  clifTcrcnce  is  only 


one  hunJrtid  uaJ  eigiit  ihuul'aiid. 


44^  A      S    H    O    R    T 

Your  liberality  towards  Solomon,  fir,  is  amaz- 
ing ;  you  have  juft  given  him  forty  thoufand  coach- 
houfes,  which  the  fcripture  does  not  mention,  and 
here  you  make  him  a  prefent  of  twelve  thoufand 
ftables  for  his  twelve  thoufand  faddle-horfes  ;  you 
fuppofe  probably  that  each  of  Solomon's  horfes  had 
a  feparate  ftable  ;  fuch  is  the  idea  you  form  to  your* 
felf  ot  the  oeconomy  of  this  wife  prince. 

It  is  true,  we  muft  allow  it,  that  this  whole  Latin 
text  is  not  very  clear ;  we  might  abfolutely  doubt 
•whether  by  thefe  words,  duodecim  millia  equejiriumy 
v/e  fhould  underfland  twelve  thoufand  war-horfes> 
or  twelve  thoufand  (tables  for  them.  We  cannot 
even  tell  whether  the  author  of  the  Vulgate  hy  prafe- 
■pla  means  ftables,  and  it  is  not  clear  that  this  word, 
taken  in  this  fenfe,  is  a  jufl:  tranilation  of  the  cor- 
refponding  Hebrew  word.  Open  (i)  Bochart,  fir, 
there  you  will  find  that  the  Hebrew  exprefTion  may 
perhaps  fignify  only  the  place^  or  as  father  Houbigant 
fays,  they/.7//of  each  horfe. 

Therefore  the  very  obfcurity  of  this  pafiTage  fliould 
have  given  you  fome  diftruft  of  your  obje£tIon  ;  and 
in  faft,  what  advantage  can  you  gain  by  an  obfcure 
text  fo  ill  underfi:ood  ? 

But  dill  further  ;  this  paflage  of  the  third  book 
of  Kings,  not  only  in  the  Latin,  but  alfo  in  the  He- 
brew, does  not  agree  with  the  parallel  paiTage  in  the 
Chronicles.  It  is  faid  in  this  latter,  that  Solomon 
had  not  forty  thoufand  llables  for  the  horfes  of 
his  chariots,  as  the  book  of  Kings  fays,  but  forty 
thoufand  chariot  horfes  in  his  ftables  ;  and  alfo  that 
he  had  twelve  thoufand  faddle-horfes  in  his  ftables, 
and  not,  as  you  make  the  book  of  Kings  fay,  twelve 
thoufand  ftables  for  his  faddle-horfes.  Such  a  re- 
markable oppofition  between  thefe  two  texts,  added 

(l)  Bochart.  Mr.  Voltaire  has  bcfn  accufed  of  fomctimes  pillaging  the 
works  of  this  learned  man,  without  quoting  his  name  ;  we  hclieve  that  th« 
charge  is  groundlefs.  If  the  illulirous  writer  liad  taken  the  trouble  of  going 
Hp  to  this  fpring,  hf  would  have  learned  thtre  what  we  htve  now  faid  ; 
and  probably  he  uou'd  have  been  fo  kitid  as  to  inform  his  reader*  ot"  is. 
Idtt, 


COMMENTARY.  443 

to  the  improbability  of  the  calculation  in  the  book 
of  Kings,  fhews  clearly  that  there  has  been  fonie 
alteration  of  the  copiers  in  this,  and  perhaps  even  in 
both. 

You  fay  jcftingly,  that  they  alone  could  be  mijlaken  ; 
and  you  fay  the  truth,  efpecially  in  this  cafe  ;  for 
to  what  other  caufe  but  their  negligence,  hurry,  or 
even  if  you  will,  their  foolifh  vanity,  which  prompt- 
ed them  to  exalt  Solomon's  charader,  could  this 
enormous  difference  in  calculation  be  afcribed  be- 
tween two  writers,  who  feem  to  have  been  perfed: 
mailers  of  the  fubjecls  which  they  treated,  and  to 
have  copied  from  authentick  memorials  ?  Agreeably 
to  this,  moll  of  the  befl  critics,  Jews  and  Chriftians, 
reduce  Solomon's  faddle-horfes  to  twelve  thoufand, 
and  his  chariot-horfes  to  forty  thoufand,  fome  even 
to  four  thoufand. 

Now  we  think,  fir,  it  would  be  hard  for  you  to 
fhew  that  this  prince  could  not  polTibly  keep  fifty 
two  thoufand  horfes.  Befides  Palefline,  Solomon 
was  mafler  of  part  of  Arabia  Petreea,  and  of  Arabia 
deferta,  and  you  are  fenfible  that  in  thefe  regions 
horfes  are  common  and  very  good  ;  that  they  are 
one  of  their  flaple  commodities  in  trade  ;  that  cavalry 
formed  anciently,  and  flill  forms  a  confiderable  bo- 
dy in  the  armies  of  thofe  warlike  nations.  If  hor- 
fes were  lefs  common  in  Paleftine,  it  is  becaufe  the 
frequent  uTe  of  them  was  forbidden  (i)  by  religion 
and  wife  policy  ;  but  this  country  could  feed  horfes, 
witnefs  the  cavalry  and  chariots  of  war  of  the  Ca- 
naanites,  which  probably  were  not  drawn  by  oxen  ; 
witnefs  the  traffick  of  horfes  which  Solomon  carried 
on,  his  cavalry,  his   chariots  of  war,  and   thofe  of 

(i)  By  relig'en  anl  iv'tfe  pol'iey.  The  learned  Bi(hop  Sherlock  ha»  fhewn 
that  there  was  a  motive  of  relijiion  for  this  prohihition  given  to  the  Jews 
of  keeping  a  great  number  of  horfes.  The  Jcgillator  wanted  to  nialtc  the 
Hebrt-ws,  when  they  were  in  battle,  place  their  confidence  in  the  I.nrJ,  ra- 
ther than  in  the  multitude  of  their  horfes  and  chariot's.  Hi  in  curriius  53*  wj 
tquit,  nos  autcm  in  ncmine  domini.      .See  his  Trcatifc  on  Prophecy 

The  pohtical  rjafon  for  this  prohibition  was,  that  in  fuch  a  country  as 
Psleftioe,  too  great  a  ijuantitv  of  iiorfes  might  have  hurtcd  popubtion,  «DC 
•f  the  lawgiver's  great  objcili.     Aut.  ^^. 


444  A       S     H     O     R     T 

his  fuccefTors.  If  you  think  that  Paleftine  feeds 
nothing:  but  affes,  and  that  there  are  now  no  other 
beafts  of  burthen  in  it,  you  are  greatly  miftaken  a- 
p-ain  ;  modern  travellers  will  tell  vou,  that  faddle- 
horfes  are  not  uncommon  there.  Perhaps  then  it 
may  not  be  fo  impoHible  as  you  think  for  Solomon 
to  have  had  fifty  two  thoufand  horfes. 

But  if  this  number  ftill  appears  too  great  for  a 
Jewifli  Melk,  nothing  hinders  you  to  reduce  the 
number  of  horfes  (v.ith  the  learned  of  vv'hom  we  have 
been  fpeaking)  to  fixteen  thoufand.  You  may  chufe 
out  of  thefe  calculations  the  one  you  like  bell  ;  and 
if  you  think  it  proper,  you  need  not  adopt  any  of 
them.  Neither  your  divines  nor  ours  damn  people 
for  this.  When  the  text  is  altered  we  are  under  no 
obligation  to  believe  in  it. 

§   3*     Of  the  riches  ivbich  ivcre  brought  to  Solomon 
bv  the  Ophir-fleet. 

Text.  "  His  fleets  brought  him  annually  fixty- 
*'  eight  millions  in  pure  gold,  without  reckoning  fil- 
*'  ver  and  precious  ftones." 

Comment.  Thefe  fixty-eight  millions  alfo  amaze 
vou,  fir.  But  befides  that  you  are  by  no  means 
certain  that  your  valuations  are  juft,  what  proofs 
have  you  that  the  trade  of  Ophir  was  not  worth  that 
fum  to  Solomon  .?  Ophir  v/as  a  country  rich  in  geld  ; 
it  was  then  v^'ith  refpcdt  to  Solomon,  what  the  coun- 
try of  the  Alileans  has  been  fmce  for  fome  time,  to 
the  people  who  bordered  (i)  en  Arabia,  and  what 
Peru  has  been  fmce  to  the  Spaniards.  Is  is  faid  in 
our  fcriptures  that  Solomon  made  gold  as;  common  J' 
in  Jerufalem  as  flones.  This  oriental  figure,  which 
you  will  not  certainly  take  literally,  fhev/s  at  lead 

(i)  On  Arnhia.  V/e  read  In  the  Bibliothera  Phofiana  an  extraft  from  a 
vork  of  Aj;atharchicles,  v^lu-re  this  writer  relates  that  the  country  of  the 
>Viilca»i3  abdunJed  fo  mucli  .in  pure  gold,  that  tiu-y  (^'ein^ndly  found  plecxa 
ofitajlar^e  au  ihtr  ftones  of  i>li its  or  medlars,  and  even  as  nuts.  That  tlic 
inhabitant's  mixed  thrm  with  tranf]iarcnc  flones  to  make  bracelets  and  neck- 
}:icits  of  tiitriu  ;  and  fhi-t  they  fold  it  at  fo  low  a  ytw,  that  they  gnvc  trijle 
:he  wtij,'t:t  in  gold  for  brafs,  double  for  iron,  and  ttjs  times  the  vvci^h:  (sr 
.^ivsr.    This  Is  jirttty  ticarlv  v.hat  ^Ji-A  ar.a wards  at  Pv.ru.     /i-<. 


COMMENTARY.  445 

that  during  this  prince's  reign,  gold  became  very 
common  in  that  capital  ;  and  this  is  a  proof  that 
the  trade  of  Ophir  was  not  fo  unprofitable  as  you 
think  it. 

If  notwithftanding  thefe  confiderations  this  fum 
feems  rather  exaggerated,  if  it  is  neceffary  to  allow 
fome  miftakv'  here,  would  it  be  agreeable  to  the  laws 
of  true  criticifm  to  afcribe  it  to  learned  and  faithful 
writers,  rather  than  to  copiers,  who  are  often  abfent 
and  negligent  ?  Our  books  have  palfed  thro'  fo 
many  hands  and  fo  many  ages,  that  it  cannot  feem 
wonderful  that  fome  miftakes  may  be  found  in  them. 
God  certainly  has  not  permitted  that  any  material 
alterations  fhould  have  crept  in,  any  errors  deftruc- 
tiv^of  the  purity  of  doctrine  or  morals  ;  but  it  was 
not  abfohitely  necefiary  that  no  inaccuracies  of 
tranfcribers  (hould  be  found  in  it  upon  objeds 
foreign  to  religion  and  morality.  And  what  mat- 
ters it  to  either  of  thefe  that  David  fhould  have 
left  more  or  lefs  money  to  his  fon  ?  That  Solomon 
fhould  have  had  more  or  fewer  horfes  ?  More  or 
fewer  ftables  ?  &c.  &c.  Will  the  religion  which 
is  revealed  in  our  fcriptures  be,  for  fuch  reafons, 
left  noble,  and  its  morality  lefs  pure  ?  Is  it  not  ex- 
traordinary that  a  writer  who  palTes  over  all  the 
abfurdities  of  the  Vedain  and  the  Corntovedani,  on 
account  ot  fome  fine  precepts  which  have  probably 
been  copied  out  of  our  facred  writings,  fhould  raile 
fuch  flimfy  objections  againfl  thefe  facred  wri- 
tings, and  trump  up  even  the  blunders  of  tran- 
fcribers ? 

THIRTEE^NTH     EXTRACT. 

0/  the  Booh  of  Wifdom.  Of  feme  miflakes  of  the 
learned  critic,  and  offomething  more  th".  n   inijlakes,     \ 

Altho'  the  Book  of  Wifdom,  which  your- churcli 
inferts  irXo  the  canon  of  infpired  writings,  is  not  re- 
ceived into  our  canon,  yet  our  mafltrs  eiteemit,  and 
quote  it  with  refpect. 

-,  3  L 


446  A       S     H     O     R     T 

^/,  The  author,  whoever  he  was,  feenis  to  have  lived 
among  idolaters ;  and.  having  been  eye-witnefs  of 
.their  fuperflitions  and  excefl'es,  he  did  not  hold 
the  fame  opinion  of  idolatry  that  certain  modern 
pretended  philofophers  do,  who  extol  it,  who  regret 
the  happy  tera  of  it,  and  who  would  wifh  to  bring 
it  back  for  the  good  of  the  world.  He  goes  up  to 
the  rife  of  this  falfe  worlhip  ;  he  (liews  the  vanity 
and  madnefs  of  it,  and  defcribes  the  cruelties,  the 
impurities,  and  all  the  crimes  of  which  it  was,  and 
is  IHII  the   baneful  fource. 

Thefe  confiderations  prompt  us  to  flop  for  a 
moment,  and  to  confider  what  you  fay  of  this 
book. 

§  I.  Of  the  Author  of  the  Book  of  Wifdom.  This 
book  is  nfcribcd^  according  to  the  learned  critic,  to 
Phi  10  of  Bib! OS. 

Text.  "  This  book  was  not  written  by  Solo- 
"  mon  ;  it  is  g  nerally  afcribed  to  Jefus  the  fon  of 
"  Sirach.*'.(Philof.  Did.  article  Solomon.) 

CommeimT.  This  bock  zcas  not  ^written  by  Solomort, 
Who  knows  not  this,  fir  ?  All  the  commentators  ob- 
ferve  it. 

Vv'e  cannot  tell  whether  among  Chriflians,  it  is 
generally  afcribed  to  Jefus,  fon  of  Sirach  ;  but  this 
o]^ii:ion  is  not  common  amongll  us.  Many  of  our 
learned,  and  even  fome  of  yours,  afcribe  it  to  ano- 
ther writer,  who  they  think  was  an  lielleniltick  Jew, 
pretry  well  acquainted  with  the  language  and  opini- 
ons of  the  Greeks  ;  they  believe  him  to  have  been 
one  of  thofe  whom  Ptolemy  employed  in  tranflating 
our  facred  writings  ;  but  they  agree  that  there  is 
nothiiig  certain  wi.th  refpecl  to  this  author,  his  name, 
or  the  tim.e  in  which  he  lived. 

Text.  "  Others  afcrjbe  it  to  Philo  of  Biblos." 
(Ibidem.) 

Comment.  To  PhiJocfBiblos.  There  have  been 
fe\'^ral  Philos,  fir,  known  by  their  writings ;  three 
amongd  the  red,  the  firll  and  moH:  ancient,  whom 
Jofephus  mentions  in  the  lilt  of  thofe  Pagan  authors. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  447 

who   have  fpoke  of  the  Jews^ ;    the  fecond,  more 
modern,  a  learned  Jewilh  philofopher,   who  has  left 
us  fome  valuable  works ;  the  third,  Phllo  of  Biblos 
another  Pagan  writer,  of  whom  we  have  nothiiiir  but 
fragments.  ^ 

It  is  certain  that  feme  critlcks  amoncrft  you  hove 
held,  that  our  philofopher  of   Alexandria   was  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  VVifdom,   and  the  folidity  of 
.  then-  proofs  is  well  known. 

But  this  book  could  never  be  afcribed  by  you  o- 
any  one  elfe,  except  in  a  very  absent  moire  u,  to 
the  grammarian  of  Biblos.  What  relation  could  vou 
pofhbly  fee,  fir,  between  the  Book  of  Wifdon'  in 
which  PagAnifm  is  combated,  and  Philo  of  Bib- 
los, the  Pagan  tranflator  of  the  Pagan  Sanchonia- 
tno  I 

§  2.  Jn  odd  notion  of  the  learned  criiick  •  h- 
makes    the  Pentatemb  poflerkr   to   the  Book   ofWi}- 

Here  is  a  dill  more  extraordinary  abfence  of  mind 
if  It  can  truly  be  called  fo.  "   ' 

Text.     "  Whoever  was  the  author  of  this  book 

It  appears  that  in  his  time  they  had  not  vet  the 
,    "   Pentateuch.'*     (Ibidem. 

Comment.  What,  fir,  they  had  not  the  Pen- 
tateuch m  the  time  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Wildom,  whoever  he  be  !  They  had  it  not  in  th- 
time  ot  jefus,  the  fon  of  Sirach,  nor  even  in  that  of 
i  hilo  tt.e  Jew,   or  of  Philo  of  Biblos  I 

Jefus  Ion  of  Sirach,  wrote  about  two  hundred 
.years  after  Efdras  ;  Philo  the  Jew,  in  the  fird  cen- 
tury of  the  chnftian  asra,  and  Philo  of  Biblos,  in 
the  fecond.  Therefore,  if  we  believe  vou,  they  had 
not  the  Pentateuch  two  hundred  years ^^fter  Efdras; 
they  had  it  not  in  the  fn-il,  nor  even  in  the  fecond 
-century  of  the  chriflian  a.ra  !  Does  not  your  reafon- 
ing  Ihew,  that  he  who  proves  too  much  proves  noth- 
ing i'  Certainly,  fir,  when  you  compiled  this  article 
you  had  loft  fight  of  all  vour  da^cs 


M^  A      S     H     O     R    T 

§  3.  Reafons  alledged  by  the  critic^  to  prove  that 
the  Pentateuch  ivas  pofierior  to  the  Book  of  Wif- 
dom. 

But  we  are  miftaken,  fir,  there  is  no  abfence  of 
mind  in  this  cafe  ;  this  is  a  refleded,  premeditated 
ail'ertion,  which  you  endeavour  to  prove. 

I'ext.  "  This  author  fays  in  the  loth  chapter, 
"  that  Abraham  wanted  to  offer  up  his  fon  Ifaac  at 
"  the  time  of  the  flood  ;  and  in  another  place,  he 
fpeaks  of  the  patriarch  jofeph,  as  of  a  king  of  Egypt,** 
(Ibidem,  article  Solomon.) 

Comment,  ift.  Even  if  the  author  had  held  this  lan- 
guage,which  you  make  himfpeak,would  it  followfrom 
thence  that,  whoever  he  be,  they  had  not  the  Penta- 
teuch in  his  time  ?  Can  the  blunders  of  one  writer 
affecl  another,    or  prove  for   or   againft  his  piori- 

Think  of  one  of  your  bed  friends,  the  Abbe  Non- 
notte,  the  man  to  whom  you  have  (i)  the  higheft 
obligations,  if  you  love  truth.  He  has  (2)  proved 
and  demonftrated  to  you,  that  in  an  hundred  places, 
of  your  Univerfal  Hiftory,  you  fall  into  grofs  blun- 
ders, and  contradict  preceding  hiftorians  without 
reafon.  Can  thefe  midakes  prove  that  in  your  time 
there  was  no  Hiftory  of  France  ? 

2dly,  But,  fir,  is  it  certain  that  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Wifdom  has  committed  the  two  miftakes 
which  you  produce  as  proofs  ?  The  air  of  aflu- 
rance  with  which  you  impute  them  to  him  may  de- 
ceive fome  readers.     We  find  it  hard  to  conceive  that 


(x)  Tljc  highcji  oUigitiotis-  It  fcems  to  us  however,  tliat  the  xiluftrious 
writer  ha-i  as  many  (iMigations  to  many  otlicrs,  we  cocid  name  at  Icaft 
twenty.   CbiiJ}. 

(1)  Proved  and d:monllrateJ  See  the  errors  of  Voltaire.  A  work  nectffary 
Toallthofewho  wifh  toread  the  Univerfal  MiOory,  and  nothe  the  dupesoftiie 
niidal'.esand  littleartsol'the  il  uflrious writer.  This  worlc  has  3'readyp;one  thro' 
three  editions, notwithfiaruiinjf  the  indecent  refentnientof  Mr.  Voltaire  agmn ft 
it  and  its  autlior.  Will  people  never  fee,  th;it  the  bell  anlwcr  that  can  be 
niadc^oa  lair  piece  of  criticifm,  is  tocorredl one's  errois,  and  not  to  givt 
iibuCvc  language  .*    £dit. 


COMMENTARY.  449 

a  celebrated  writer,  who  ought  to  reverence  him- 
feJf,  even  if  he  did  not  refped  the  pubiick,  fliouid 
forget  himfelf  fo  far  as  to  alledge  confidently  fuch 
manifefl:  falfehoods.  But  when  we,  read  the  text  of 
the  author  we  arc  convinced  that  this  charge  has  not 
the  leafl  fhadow  of  foundation. 

Here  folloivs  firft  the  pafTage  which  fpeaks  of  i^bra- 
hani  ;  we  (hall  produce  it  entire,  and  after  the  Vul- 
gate verfion.  "  Wifdom,  fays  the  author,  prefejved 
"  the  firft  formed  father  of  the  world,  that  was  cre^ 
*'  ated  alone,  and  brought  him  out  of  his  fall,  and 
"  gave  him  pov/pr  to  rule  all  things  ;  but  when  the 
''  unrighteous  went  away  from  her  in  his  anger, 
"  he  perilhed  alfo  in  the  fury  wherewith  he  murder- 
*'  ed  his  brother  ;  for  whofe  caufe  the  earth  being 
drowned  with  the  flood,  wifdom  again  preferved 
it,  and  directed  the  courfe  of  the  righteous  in  a 
piece  of  .wood  of  fmall  value  ;  moreover  the  na- 
tions in  .fheir  wicked  confpiracy  being  con- 
founded, flie  found  out  the  righteous  and  preferved 
him  blamelefs  unto  God,  and  kept  him  ftrong 
againll  his  tender  ccompaflion  towards  his  fon.'* 
What,  fir  !  is  it  in  this  text  that  you  find  .that 
Abraham  wanted  to  offer  up  his  fon  at  the  time  of 
the  tlood  ?  If  the  miftake  was  real,  it  would  be  eiftra- 
ordinary,  and  full  as  good  as  that  of  making  ]Philo  of 
Biblos  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Wifdom.  But  in 
trutn,  is  there  one  word  in  this  pafHige  which  could 
raife  fuch  anjdea,  or  give  the  leafl  pretence  for  a 
.  charge  of  fuch  a  grofs  anachronifm  ?  Is  it  not  clear 
■  on  the  contrary,  that  the  author  places  this  facrifice 
long  after  that  dreadful  cataftrophe,  when  the  na- 
tions, 'almofl  lofmg  remembrance  of  God's  threat- 
enings,  gave  themfelves  up  to  every  kind  of  abomi- 
nation ? 

'  You  add,  fir,  that  in  another  place  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Y/ifdom  fpeaks  of  jofeph  as  of  a  king 
of  Egypt.  Let  us  fee  the  paifage.  "  Whei-^the 
*•  righteous  was  fold,  wifdom   foribok  liim  not,  but 


<c 

6i 


450 


SHORT 


*'  delivered  him  from  fin,  fhe  went  down  with  him 
"  into  the  pit  ;  and  left  him  not  in  bonds  till 
"  Ihe  brought  him  the  fceptre  of  the  kingdom,  and 
"  power  againfl:  thofe  that  oppreffed  him  ;  as  for 
*'  them  that  oppreffed  him,  fhe  fhewed  them  to  be 
"   liars  and  gave  him  perpetual  glory.'* 

You  p^round  your  charge  probably  on  thefe  words, 
ihc  fceptre  of  the  kingdo7n  ;  but  it  is  very  plain  that 
■  thefe  words  have  not  that  abfurd  fenfe  which  you  are 
pleafed  to  give  them.  No  one  was  ever  miftaken 
here  but  yourfelf.  Any  one  may  fee  at  firft  fight 
that  it  is  unreafonable  to  take  figurative  expreffions 
literally  ;  that  nothing  more  is  meant  here  than  the 
power  of  a  favourite  minifler,  with  whom  his  fo- 
vereign  entrufts  his  confidence  and  authority  j  that 
it  would  be  ridiculous  to  afcribe  to  an  author,  who 
appears  in  other  refpe6ls  well  informed,  fuch  grofs 
errors  upon  fuch  flight  grounds  ;  fuch  (hocking  ig- 
norance as  would  difgrace  not  only  Philo,  or  the  fon 
of  Sirach,  but  the  loweft  of  the  Jews. 

If  in  like  manner  we  were  to  take  literally  fome. 
llrong  expreflions,  which  you  ufe  in  fpeaking  of  Car- 
dinal Richelieu,  and  fay  that  you  made  a  king  of 
France  of  him  ;  if  we  were  to  conclude  farther  from 
this,  that  you  are  little  acquainted  with  the  hi'dory 
of  your  country,  or  that  your  country  had  no  an- 
nals before  Lewis  the  fifteenth,  would  you  think  fuch 
arguments  worthy  of  a  place  in  a  philofophical  work  ? 
And  would  you  not  think  it  a  favour  done  to  the  rea- 
foner,  to  fuppofe  him  only  abfent  in  mind  ?  No,  fuch 
reafonings  would  not  be  mere  miftakes,  they  would 
certainly  be  fomething  worfe  than  miftakes. 

FOURTEENTH     E  X  T  R  A  C  T. 

■Mi/ccllaneous  cbfervations .  Mijiakcs  and  g'lddi- 
nefs  of  the  learned  author  on  different  fubje^s. 

'\JMien  a  man  has  a  v/arm  imagination,  hnd  writes 
haftily  on  fubjecls  of  v^'liichhc  is  not  mafter,  it  is  very 


COMMENTARY.  451 

difficult  for  him  not  to  fall  into  miftakes.  For  this 
reafon,  fir,  you  have  fallen  into  many,  when  you 
have  undertaken  to  fpeak  of  our  hiflory,  our  facred 
writings   and  our  laws,  &c. 

We  have  already  pointed  out  many  of  thefe  mif- 
takes  ;  we  fliall  now  lay  more  of  them  before  you, 
which  will  not  appear  lefs  extraordinary.  They 
are  of  fuch  a  nature,  fir,  that  you  will  be  oblio^ed  to 
confefs,  either  that  you  are  exceedingly  giddy,  or 
that  you  never  read  with  care  thofe  divine  writings 
v/hich  you  criticife. 

§    I.     The  Book  of  yof})ua,  and  others  placed  in  the 

Pentateuch. 

We  do  not  mifreprefent  you,  fir,  thefe  are  your 
own  words, 

Text.  "  The  Book  of  Mofes,  of  Jofhua,  and 
''  the  reft  of  the  Pentateuch."  (Philof.  of  Hilt,  ar- 
ticle Mofes,  page  189.) 

Comment.  It  is  evident,  that  befides  the  Book  of 
Mofes,  you  add  here  that  of  Jbfliua,  and  others  to  the 
Pentateuch.  Where  then  was  your  attention,  fir  ? 
You  muft  have  forgot  even  the  derivation  of  the 
word  Pentateuch.  For  if  you  had  had  the  flighted: 
recolledion,  you  would  have  perceived  that  this  col- 
le£lion  contains  no  more  than  the  five  books  of  the 
lawgiver,  and  that  neither  the  book  of  Jofliua  nor 
any.  other  were  ever  comprehended  in  it.  Will  you 
not  allow,  fir,  that  altho'  the  miftake  is  of  no  great 
confequence,  yet  he  muft  have  been  very  giddy  who 
committed  it  ?  Here  follow  foine  more  of  the  fame 
ftamp. 

•'     §  2.     Chenibims  of  Solomon  placed  in  the  ark,   and 
feen  by  the  Romans, 

The  title  of  this  fedion  may  perhaps  furprize  you, 
as  probably  you  do  not  think  that  you  ever  faid  any 
fuch  thing,  but  wc  fliall  quote  your  own  words  faith- 
fully, judge  of  this  matter  yourfelf. 
'  Text.  "  Solomon  got  twelve  oxen  carved*  up- 
"  on  which  ftood  the    moltor;  lea  j  cherubims  arc 


45' 


A      S     n     O     K    T 


cc 


placed  in  the  ark  ;  they  have  an  eagle's  head,  and 

a   calf's  head  ;    and  it  was  probably   this    calf's 

head,    coarfely  made^    and   found  in  the  temple 

by  the  Roman  foldiers,    that  was  the  caufe  of  the 

general  perfuafion   that""  the   Jews   worfhipped  an 

afs."     (Treaties  of  Toleration.) 

Comment.     Here  are   many  anecdotes  which 

would  never  have  been  known,  if  you  had  not  been 

fo  good  as  to  Lr\i"orm  the  publick. 

Cberubims  are  placed  in  the  ark.  We  knew,  fir, 
that  there  were  fome  c^i'^r  the  ark,  but  never  heard 
that  there  were  any  in  it.  The  fcripture  does  not 
fay  it,  or  rather 'it  fays  quite  the  contrary.  This  is 
the  great  advantage  of  reading  you  ;  one  always 
learns  fomething  new. 

You  muft  preniit  us  however  to  doubt  that  Solo- 
mon's cherubims  were  placed  in  the  ark  ;  we  even 
think  that  it  would  have  been  impoffible  to  put  them 
in  it.  The  ark  was  a  cheft  two  cubits  high,  and  one 
and  an  half  broad  ;  and  the  cherubims  were  ten  cubits 
high  and  ten  cubits  broad,  reckoning  from  the  extre- 
mity of  one  wing  to  that  of  the  other  ;  therefore 
they  were  not  made  to  be  put  into  the  ark.  This  is 
another  flight  miftake  of  yours. 

It  was  probably  this  calf's  hcad^  coarfc^  made  and 
found  in  the  temple  by  the  Roman  foldiers^  that  was  the 
caufe  of  the  general  perfuafion^  Sec.  Neither  the  ark, 
fjr,  nor  Solomon's  cherubims  with  coarfe  heads  of 
calves  had  exifled  for  a  long  time,  when  the  Ro^ 
mans  conquered  Judea.  They  did  not  go  into  So- 
lomon's temple,  which  no  longer  exifted,  but  into 
the  fecond  temple  ';  but  they  certainly  did  not  fee. 
cither  the  ark  or  the  cherubims  in  this  temple,  for 
thev  never  had  been  in  it. 

Apollonius,  confuted  by  Jofephus,  fpeaks  of  this 
ridiculous  opinion  of  the  Pagans  on  the  Jewifh  wor- 
fhip  ;  he  throws  back  the  rife  of  it  to  the  time  of 
Antiochus,  who  according  to  them,  found  an  afs's 
head  of  gold  in  the  temple  of  Jcrufalcm  j  other  Pagan 


COM  ME  N  T  A  R  Y.  453 

authors  afcrlbe  it  to  caufes  ftill  more  ancient. 
There  is  therefore  fome  probability,  fir,  that  this 
opinion  was  prior  to  the  invafion  of  the  Romans,  and 
that  it  did  not  owe  its  rife  to  the  calves  heads  of 
Solomon's  cherubims,  which  it  is  pretended  that  thefe 
conquerors  found  in  the  te-nple. 

We  cannot  tell  why  in  another  place  you  change 
the  calPs  head  of  the  cherubims  into  an  ox's  head  ; 
this  change  it  is  true  is  not  very  meterial  We  un- 
derhand however  that  a  calf's  head  coarfely  made, 
may  be  taken  for  an  afs's  head,  whiKl  on  the  other 
hand  it  is  hard  to  take  an  afs's  head  for  that  of  an 
ox,  even  coarfely  made  ;  oxen  have  horns,  and  aiTes 
have  none,  nor  calves  neither. 

In  fhort,  there  were  not  cherubims  in  the  ark,  thofe 
of  Solomon  could  not  go  into  it ;  they  were  not  feen 
by  the  Romans  ;  the  opinion  that  the  Jews  worfliip- 
ped  an  afs's  head,  was  prior  to  the  invafion  of  thefe 
conquerors.  All  thefe  aflertions,  which  unfortu- 
nately for  you  are  true,  contradidl  yours  plainly. 
Confefs,  fir,  that  in  this  abfent  hour  you  have  com- 
mitted many  blunders. 

§   3.     Of  the  books,    which  according  to  the  learned 
critick,  are  the  only  law  of  the  Jews. 

We  have  juft  read  over  again  your  letter  from  a 
Quaker  to  a  Bifliop.  This  Quaker,  who  pretends 
to  inftrudl  a  man  from  whom  it  would  become  him 
to  receive  inflrudion,  makes  rambling  dilTertations, 
quotes  the  Englifh  writers,  produces  the  objections 
of  fome  of  them,  and  the  anfwers  of  others,  &c. 
he  is  a  man  of  learning,  but  you  allow  him  to  com- 
mit fome  miftakes.     For  inftance. 

Text.  "  In  the  Decalogue,  in  Leviticu?,  in 
"  Deuteronomy,  which  are  the  fole  law  of  the  Jews." 
(Letter  from  a  Quaker,  &c.) 

'Comment.  Surely  this  French  Quaker  is  abfent. 
What  !  do  the  books  which  he  mentioas  make  up  the 
fole  law  of  the  Jews  ?  Does  he  not  know,  or  does 
he  forget  that  Exodus  con:aIns,  beTdes  the  Deca- 
logue, the  greateii  part  of  our  principal  la.vs  j  that 

3  M 


454  A      SHORT 

the  Book  of  Numbers  contains  alfo  many  of  them  ? 
With  all  his  learning,  fir,  your  C^aker  is  but  a  bad 
fcholar,  or  a  very  giddy  man. 

A^'hat  is  extraordinary  is,  that  fpeaking  in  your 
own  name,  you  have  made  the  fame  miftakc,  with  re- 
fpe£l  to  the  fame  objeft.     You  fay. 

Text.  "  In  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  that" 
*'  is  in  the  Jewifh  laws,  there  is  no  mention  made, 
&c."      (Philofophical  Dictionary,    article  Angels.) 

Comment.  You  fee,  fir,  this  is  juft  what  your 
Quaker  had  faid  ;  you  go  even  further  than  him  ; 
for  altho*  he  does  not  reckon  the  book  of  Num- 
bers among  thofe  which  contain  our  laws,  yet 
he  brings  in  part  of  Exodus,  and  you,  fir,  cut  out 
the  Book  of  Numbers  and  all  Exodus.  This  is  too 
much  1  You  have  had  the  fame  abfence  of  mind  in 
your  Treatife  on  Toleration,  &c.  &c. 

How  happens  it,    fir,    that  you  fpeak  fo  much  of 
our  laws,   without  knowing  the  books  that  contain 
thtm  ? 
■  5  4.   The  ceremony  of  taking  off  the  brotJjer-in-law*^ 
Jhoe.     ihejhoe  thrown  at  his  head. 

We  have  already  faid  that  one  of  our  laws  order- 
ed, that  a  widow  left  without  iflue  might  require  mar- 
riage from  her  hufband's  brother.  This  cuftom, 
which  was  more  ancient  than  Mofes,  as  we  may  fee 
by  the  example  of  Onan,  and  which  flill  fubfifts  in 
fome  places  of  India  and  Perfia,was  founded  on  reafon- 
able  and  wife  motives  ;the  objed:  of  it  was  to  procure 
an  eflablifhment  for  the  widow,  to  perpetuate  the 
name  of  the  dcceafed,to  multiply  families,  and  to  pre- 
vent property  from  falling  into  thehands  of  flrangers. 

"When  the  brother  of  the  deceafed  refufed  the  wi- 
dow's fuit,  file  had  a  right  to  bring  him  before  a 
court  ;  there,  in  order  to  fhew  that  he  had  forfeited 
his  right  oi"  inheritance  to  the  deceafed,  and  that  he 
deferved  to  walk  like  a  Have  barefooted,  according 
to  you. 

Text.  "  She  took  off  his  flioe,  and  threw  it  at 
"  his  head," 


COMMENTARY,  455 

Comment.  It  is  certain  that  when  the  brother's 
refufal  was  proved  in  court,  which  refufal  was  look- 
ed on  as  unjuft  towards  the  deceafedand  opprobriojs 
to  the  widow,  (he  was,  in  token  of  contempt,  to 
take  ofF  his  (hoe  ;  but  it  is  not  faid  in  any  place,  that 
jhe  was  U  throw  it  at  his  head. 

This  little  compliment  you  have  invented.  Proba- 
bly you  thought  that  it  would  make  fome  of  youf 
readers  laugh,  and  perhaps  you  had  fuccefs.  But 
what  kind  of  readers  are  they  ! 

§     5.     Pretended  contradiSlions  between  our  lazvs, 
'*"  You  add,  that  our  laws  contradict  one  another. 

Text.  "  This  law  of  Deuteronomy,  which  or- 
"  dcrs  the  brother  in  law  to  marry  his  broti. :  *s 
*'  widow  if  he  dies  without  iflue,  contradids  that 
*'  law  of  Leviticus,  which  forbids  a  man  to  uncover 
"  the  nakednefs  of  his  brother's  wife,  that  is,  to 
"  marry  his  filler  inlaw.*'  Leviticus,  ch.  18.  v. 
15.  (General  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  This  contradiftion,  which  you  think 
you  fee  and  which  offends  you,  is  not  real.  This 
verfe  of  Leviticus  is  the  general  law  ;  that  of  Deu- 
teronomy, of  which  we  have  been  fpeaking,  is  an 
exception  from  it  ;  now  an  exception  is  not  a  contra- 
diction. Mark  this,  fir,  either  you  are  abfent  or 
you  equivocate. 

After  this  fhort  remark,  it  will  be  eafy  to  anfvver 
an  argument  by  which  you  endeavour  to  demon- 
ftrate,  that  Mofes  was  not  the  author  of  Leviti- 
cus. 

Text.      "  If  Mofes  had  wrote  Leviticus,  would 
**  he  have  contradicted   himfelf  in  Deuteronomy  r 

Leviticus  forbids  marrying  the  brother's  wife,  and 

Deuteronomy  commands  it."  (Philofophical  Dic- 
tionary.) 

Comment.      To  prohibit  in  certain  cafes,    and 
-to  command  in  others,     implies  no    contradiction; 
otherwife  every  legiliator  would    have  coutradicted 
himfelf. 


45^  .      A       S    H    O    R    T 

This  argument  therefore  is  no  demonftration. 
We  find  in  it  a  fmall  want  of  attention,  if  not  of 
logick. 

It  is  again  on  account  of  this  pretended  contradic- 
tion between  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  that  you 
make  the  following  reflexion. 

Text.  "  In  thefe  books  (thofe  of  Leviticus 
*^  and  Deuteronomy)  God  feems,  according  to  our 
"  weak  comprehenfion,  fometimes  to  command  con- 
traries, as  a  trial  of  a  man's  obedience.*'  (Univerfal 
HiO-ory.) 

Comment.  Weak  capacities  indeed  are  thofe 
which  difcover  contradidlions  where  there  is  not  the 
fhadow  of  them  ! 

No,  fir,  it  is  only  thro'  the  clouds  of  inattention 
and  prejudice,  that  you  fee  any  thing  here  that  can  be 
fo  painful  a  trial  of  man's  obedience. 

You  are  a  great  mafler  of  irony  but  you  muft 
perceive  that  you  do  not  always  place  it  proper- 
]y.  . 

§   6.     Whether  among  the    "Jews  it  was  cuJio7nary 

for  a  jnmi  to  ?narry  his  fijier. 
We  have  feen  above  that  marriages  between  bro- 
thers and  fifl:ers  of  the  fame  father,  were  exprefsly 
forbidden  amongft  us.  We  have  quoted  the  Leviti- 
cal  law  which  forbad  them  ;  it  is  clear  ;  and  yet,  fir, 
you  affert  that. 

Text.  "  Among  the  Jews  a  man  might  marry 
"  his  fifler."     (Philofophical  Didionary.) 

Comment.  What  muft  we  think  of  you,  fir, 
when  we  fee  you  alferting  with  fo  much  confidence,  a 
propofition  fo  dire£fly  contrary  to  an  exprefs,  law  ? 
We  muft  fuppofe  that  you  have  the  flrongefl  proofs 
to  fupport  it  ;   let  us  fee  them. 

Text.  "  When  Anion,  the  fon  of  David,  ravifli- 
es  his  fifler  Thamar,  David's  daughter,  flie  fays 
to  him,  don't  dp  any  thing  indecent  to  me;  for  I 
'■  could  not  bear  the  affront,  and  you  would  pal's  for 
"  a  madman  J     but  demand  me  in    marriage  from 


cc 


COMMENTARY.  457 

"  the  king  my  father,  and  he  will  not  refufe  you.'* 
(Ibidem.) 

Comment.  We  fhall  fay  nothing  of  the  burlefque 
air  you  give  to  an  event  which  was  the  caufe  of  fo 
many  difaflers.  There  are  various  clalTes  of  readers, 
perhaps  thefe  parodies  may  fuit  the  tafte  of  foine  of 
them.  But  what  aftonifhes  us  is,  that  you  ihould 
coolly  oppofe  the  words  of  a  young  woman  in  con- 
fufion  at  the  fhocking  affront  which  was  going  to 
be  offered  to  her,  to  the  precife  terms  of  a  clear  law. 
Do  thefe  words,  which  dropped  from  her  in  her 
fright,  fuffice  to  prove  that  a  cuflom  which  the  law 
condemns,  and  of  which  the  hiitory  of  our  nation 
gives  no  example,  fubfifted  among  the  Jews  ?  You 
add. 

Text.  "  This  cuftom  contradids  Leviticus  a 
"  Httle,  but  contradictories  are  often  reconciled." 

Comment.  If  this  cuftom  was  proved,  it  would 
be  not  only  a  little,  but  abfolutely  contradictory 
to  Leviticus.  Now  as  it  is  certain,  on  the  contra- 
ry, that  it  never  fubfifted  amongft  us,  fmce  the  law 
prohibited  it,  where  is  the  contradidion  ? 

Obferve,  fir,  how  well  your  ironical  refledtion  is 
placed  ! 

§  7.  Of  Bcnadab,  and  of  the  two  women  of  Sama- 
ria. 

We  have  juft  been  reading,  fir,  an  article  of  your 
Queftions  fur  I'Encyclopedie,  and  it  is  certainly  a 
very  curious  one.  You  return  to  the  cannibals  in 
it,  and  you  affcrt  again,  altho'  with  fome  reftridions, 
that  our  fathers  were  cannibals,  for  as  to  us,  you 
are  fo  indulgent  as  to  fay  that  we  are  not  io. 

In  order  to  prove  your  ailertion,  you  once  more 
produce  the  pafTage  of  Ezekiel  quoted  above ;  you 
infiit  again  on  thefe  words,  Te  jhall  eat  at  my  table^ 
and  taking  this  metaphorical  expreffion  literallv, 
you  conclude  from  it,  with  an  afionifliing  juftne'fs 
and  ftrength  of  reafoning,  that  Ezekiel  promifed 
our  fathers  that  they  ihould  eat  the  flefli  of  horfe 
and  man. 


45«  A      S    H    O    R    T 

An  author  mud  have  much  courage  to  return  ten 
times  to  the  fame  fubjeiSt.  To  make  a  facred  wri* 
ter  fay,  not  once  and  en  paflant,  but  ten  times  over 
what  he  has  not  faid,  or  rather  the  contrary  of  what; 
fee  has  faid,  is  an  invincible  proof  of  candour,  and 
of  love  for  truth. 

But,  fir,  altho'  you  have  the  front  to  repeat,  do 
you  think  your  readers  have  patience  enough  to 
read  ten  times  over  the  fame  thing  ?  Even  if  thefe 
"Vvere  pleafing  anecdotes,  or  important  truths,  it 
would  be  tolerable  to  hear  them  ;  but  behold  impu- 
tations grofsly  falfe,  and  interpretations  as  foreign 
from  good  fenfe  z<  from  the  text  !  At  laft  this  will 
weary  out  the  reader's  patience. 

However  you  do  not  confine  yourfelf  entirely 
within  thefe  bounds,  for  when  you  repeat  a  thing 
you  generally  add  fomething  new  to  it.     You  fay. 

Text.  "  It  is  very  certain  that  the  kings  of  Ba- 
"  bylon  had  Scythians  in  their  armies.  Thefe  Scy* 
**  thians  drank  blood  out  of  the  fcuUs  of  their  van* 
*<  quifhed  enemies,  and  eat  their  horfes,  and  fome- 
**  times  human  flefh. 

Comment.  Tbe  Scythians  drank  blood  out  of  the 
J  culls  of  their  vanquifhed  enemies^  and  eat  their  horfes  y. 
and  fometimes  human  flefh  ;  therefore  the  Hebrews 
eat  human  flefh  too  ;  therefore  Ezekiel  promifed 
them  the  flefli  of  man  and  horfe.  Thefe  truly  arc  not 
miftakes,  but  invincible  arguments  ! 

From  thefe  reafonings,  you  pafs  to  the  two  women 
of  Samaria,  and  you  make  a  very  curious  reflexion 
on  this  fliocking  flory. 

Text.  "  Some  criticks  maintain  that  this  faft 
*'  could  not  happen,  as  is  related  in  the  4th  book  of 
"  Kings,  chap.  6.  verfe  26.  and  the  following." 
(Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Some  criticks.  What  criticks,  fir  ? 
By  not  naming  them  you  give  us  room  to  think  that 
you  are  the  only  critick  in  queflion. 

However,  let  us  fee  how  you  and  your  criticks 


<< 

4* 


€C 
<i 
<( 

cc 

ii 


COMMENTARY.  459 

^ill  ihew  that  there  is  an  error  in  the  4th  book  of 
Kings. 

Text.  «'  It  is  faid  in  this  book,  that  the  king  of 
Ifrael  pafling  by  or  over  the  wall  of  Samaria,  was 
thus  applied  to  by  a  woman ;  Save  me,  O  lord 
the  king,  and  he  replied,  what  wilt  thou  ?  And 
flie  anfwered,  O  king,  here  is  a  woman,  who  has 
faid  to  me,  give  me  your  fon,  we  will  eat  him  to- 
**  day,  and  to-morrow  we  will  eat  mine,  &c.  Thefe 
"  criticks  fay,  that  it  is  not  probable  that  king  Bena- 
"  dab,  whilfthe  was  befieging  Samaria,  fbould  have 
f*  paffed  quietly  by  or  over  the  wall  of  Samaria,  to 
determine  difputes  there  between  the  Samaritans, 
It  is  ftill  lefs  probable  that  two  women  could  not 
be  fatisfied  with  one  child  for  two  days ;  furely 
there  was  food  enough  in  it  for  four  days  at  lead.*' 
Comment.  How  deeply  read  in  the  fcriptures 
your  criticks  are,  fir  !  And  how  worthy  of  the 
confidence  of  their  readers  I 

Thefe  criticks  fay  that  it  is  not  probable^  "ilfc.  No 
certainly  it  is  not  probable  ;  it  is  utterly  improba- 
ble. There  cannot  be  any  thing  more  abfurd,  than 
to  fuppofe  a  king  at  war,  befieging  an  enemy's  ci- 
ty, and  paffing  quietly  by  or  over  their  wall,  to  de- 
termine difputes  between  the  inhabitants. 

But  this  abfurdity,  fir,  is  not  in  the  fourth  book 
<A  kings.  The  fourth  Book  of  Kings  exprefsly  fays 
that  it  was  to  the  king  of  Ifrael  thefe  two  women  apl 
plied.  Muft  the  Book  of  Kings  be  cenfured,  becaufe 
your  criticks  confound  what  that  diftinguifhes,  the 
king  of  Ifrael,  with  the  king  of  Affyria,  the  be'fie^r- 
cd  with  the  befieger  ? 

With  the  fame  exadnefs  and  precifion,  thefe 
learned  criticks  add,  that  the  child  which  was  eaten 
by  thefe  two  women  ought  to  have  been  food  enough 
for  them  for  four  days  at  leaft.  They  know  furely 
what  every  one  does  not,  the  age  and  fize  of  this 
child  ;  and  they  have  calculated  exaftly,  how  much 
two  women  can  eat,  who  are  almoft  ftarved  to  death. 
Thefe  indeed  are  noble  difcoveries. 


460  A      SHORT 

Truly,  fir,  when  we  hear  thefe  able  criticks  thus 
reafoning,  is  it. hard  treatment  to  fay,  that  they  are 
abfcnt  in  mind  ? 

FIFTEENTH      EXTRACT.' 

Of  fome  fcicnces  and  arts.     Of  languages.     Latin  and 

Greek. 

V/hen  we  read,  fir,  in  one  of  your  late  compofi- 
tions,  that  notwithltanding  your  infirmities,  you  are 
actually  taken  up  with  twenty  faiences,  altho'  we 
could  not  help  admiring  your  unremitting  ardour 
for  exalted  knowledge,  yet  our  admiration  was  mix- 
ed with  pain. 

We  could  not  help  pitying  you,  and  befides  pity- 
ing the  fciences,  the  age  you  live  in,  and  poflerity. 
We  pitied  you,  becaufe  you  take  too  little  care  of 
your  precious  life  and  health,  objects  of  great  mo- 
ment to  all  levers  of  literature  and  philofophy.  We 
pitied  the  fciences,"  becaufe  twenty  fciences  cultivat- 
ed at  one  time  by  one  man,  altho*  of  a  deep  and 
bright  genius,  muft  be  all  lightly  run  over,  and  none 
of  them  fearched  to  the  bottom.  And  ladly  we  pi- 
tied poflerity,  becaufe  the  mlRakes  of  great  men 
arc  of  a  fpreading  nature  ;  they  are  equally  hurtful 
to  their  cotemporaries  and  to  future  ages  ;  and  we 
think  it  very  difficult  for  you  not  to  fall  into  many 
fuch,  when  you  treat  of  fo  many  fubjects.  Already 
you  have  committed  many  miftakes.*  We  fliall  en- 
deavour now,  fir,  to  point  out  fome  of  them  to  you  ; 
but  we  do  not  promife  to  follow  you  every  where 
thro'  that  immenfe  career  which -you  tread  with 
fuch  undaunted  fteps. 

§    I.     Of  Languages. 

You  are  a  perfecl  malter,  fir,  of  all  the  learned 
lan'juaoes  and  of  the  modern  too.  Thofe  of  the 
Engliih,  Italians,  Romans,  Greeks,  Hebrews,  Egyp- 
tians, Syrians,  Caldeans,  Arabians  ;  from'eaft  to 
weft,  from  antiquity  to  modern  times,  you  know  all 
their  diiferent  tongues.  You  compare  thefe  diffe- 
• 


C  O  M  M  J:  N  T  A  R  Y*  4^1 

rent  languages  ;  you  determine  their  advantages  and 
difadvantages  J  you  quote  thfcir  expreffions,  and  point 
out  the  fenfe  of  them  ;  in  Ihort,  you  poiTels  a  nioft 
extenfive  and  unerring  knowledge,  with  reipQtl  to 
all  thefe  objedls  as  well  as  many  others. 

As  for  our  knowledge,  it  is  quite  fupfirficial  and 
contracted  ;  we  make  this  humble  confeiTion.  We 
learned  only  a  little  Latin  at  (i)  the  univerfity  of  Za- 
mofc,  and  a  few  Greek  words  in  that  ojf  Leyden  ;  and 
the  acquaintance  we  have  with  the  language  of  our 
fathers,  is  but  juft  fufficient  to  enable  us  to  under- 
lland  moderately  ourfacred  writings.  And  yet  with 
this  poor  (lock  of  learning,  we  venture  to  attempt 
to  point  out  fome  miflakes  of  this  kind  in  your  wri- 
tings, which  ought  to  be  corrected  !  This  is  a  bold, 
and  ra(h  undertaking ;  we  are  fenfible  of  it ;  but 
the  defire  of  being  ufeful  to  you,  incites  us  to  it. 
We  hope  that  the  mediocrity  of  our  talents  will  be 
compenfated  by  the  ardour  of  our  zeaJ. 

§   2.     0/"  the  Latin  iongue.     Some  of  the  learned 
crUick's  Latin. 

You  have,  fir,  a  tranflation  of  our  facred  \^Tltings 
in  the  Latin  tongue,  which  fome  of  the  learned  call 
barbarous,  and  (2)  others  vindicate  it.  In  imitation. 
probably  of  this  old  tranflation,  you  fpeak  to  the  fea 
in  Latin,  and  you  fay.. to  it, 

Text.    "  Hue  ufquevenies  &  non  ibis  ampllus." 

Comment.  Non  ibis  amplius.  If  you  pretend  that 
this  Latin  is  outlSfthe  Vulgate,  you  wrong  it.'  Al- 
tho*  the  Vulgate  is  barbarous,  as  you  fay,  yet  it  ne- 
ver puflied  barbarifm  to  that  pitch.  We  have  read 
it  over  carefully  and  found  no  fuch  thing  in  it» 
Pray  then,  fir,  is  this  your  Latin  ?  It  is  rather  fiat. 

3  N 

(l)  Unltttrfity  of  Zamofi.  This  Is  an  univerfity  5n  Poland,  ff«qucntcd  by 
t^  Tews.     Quaifc,  Ar«  ther  admitted  at  Leyden  ?     CW/7. 

(j)  O'.bers  "jinJicaU.  See  what  Filefac,  the. famous  Syndic  of  fhe  cni^ef" 
{ity  uf  Paris  has  faid  of  it.  See  aiib  what  a  learned  Beuer'.iftine  has  fald  iit 
a  work  callc  1,  An  ExpIanatijB  of  f^ms  difficult  paffiges  uf  fcripturc.   Idtm, 


4^2  A       ^    11    O    R    T 

Ah,  fir,  non  ibis  afiipHus  !  This  is  the  fort  of  Latin 
we  hear,  when  we  arc  taking  poil-horfes  in  Poland. 
§  3.  y^/  paffage  of  the  Vulgate  ill  tranjlated. 

After  all,  what  matters  it  whether  a  man  fpeaks 
elegant  Latin  Or  not  ?  The  point  is  to  underftand  it. 
We  doubt  not,  fir,  but  you  have  a. perfect  know- 
ledge of  the  authors  of  the  Auguftin  age  ;  but  in- 
deed you  fometimes  make  miftakes,  when  you  tranf-, 
late  Latin  writers  of  later  date.  For  inflance,  vour 
Vulgate  verfion  addredes  thefe  words  to  God,  "  pro- 
"  ducens  fcenumjumentis  &  herbam  fervituti  homi- 
"  num."     Which  you  thus  render. 

Text.   "  Thou  producefl:  hay  for    cattle,    and 
"  grafs  for  man.**     (Philof.  ofHiftory.) 

Comment.  We  think,  fir,  that  this  is  not  the 
exaft  fenfe  of  the  Latin.  This  verfe  does  not  fpeak 
of  the  food  of  men,  but  of  that  of  beafls  intended 
for  the  fervice  of  men  ♦,  for  beafls  God  gives  hay 
and  grafs.  In  this  paflage,  fir,  grafs  and  hay  are 
(i)  fynoninious  words.  Obferve  this.  And  men  do 
not  eat  hay. 

If  you    found   the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate  obfcure, 
why   had   you  not    recourfe   to   the  Hebrew  text  ?• 
Truly  this  is  an  unpardonable  negligence  in  a  man 
that  underftands  Hebrew  j  and  you  often  fall  into 
it! 

§  4.    ^  mijlake  of  greater  confequence. 

The  two  miftakes  which  we  have  now  pointed  out 
are  but  of  f mall  confequence  j  the  loUowing  one  is 
important. 

You  are  fpeaking  of  your  firftmafters,  thofe  who 
firft  brought  to  light  your  great  talents.  You  tell  us 
of  the  following  infcription.  ^od  eorum  inflin^u 
piacularis  adolcfccns  facinus  inflituerat  ;  and  thus  you 
render  thefe  words,  "  they  were  driven  away." 

Text.  "  Becaufe  they  prevailed  on  a  young  man 
"  to  commit  this  parricide  by  ivay  of  penance,''*  (E- 
vangile  dujour.) 

(i)  SyiWttimaus  ivorJs.  For  this  rcafon  fiiint  Jcroni,  who  undt rftood  He- 
brew, thas  tranflatcs  it.  Csrminatu  herbam  jumcntit  l:f  fanum  fervituti  iimi- 
num.     £clit. 


COMMENTARY  463 

Comment.  We  cannot  find  any  thing  in  this  La- 
tin fentence  that  fpeaks  of  penance.  Perhaps  you 
think  that  piacularis  adolefcens  fignified  a  young  pe- 
nitent ;  no^  /  *^y  it  fignifies  an  accurfed  young  man, 
an  execrable  yt;'2»rig  villain ;  therefore  this  expref- 
fion,  by  way  of  penance,  is  either  a  wilful  miftake,  or 
at  leaft  a  grofs  blunder. 

You  add  a  refledion,  the  juftnefs  and  bent  of 
which,  Ghriftians  are  better  judges  of  than  we  can 
be. 

Text.  "  This  word,  (that  of  penance,)  becomes 
"  by  this  aft,  one  of  the  moil  extraordinary  monu- 
"  ments  for  illuftrating  the  hiflory  of  the  human 
"  mind." 

Comment  i  Yes,  truly,  if  this  word  v/as  to  be 
found  in  the  infcription.  But  if  it  is  not  there,  if 
you  have  added  it  out  of  your  own  head,  if  this  mif- 
take  is  purpofely  made  to  cafl;  an  odium  on  the  rites 
of  your  church,  and  the  guides  of  your  youth,  Vv^hat 
will  this  monument  ferve  to  illuftrate  in  the  hiflory 
of  the  human  mind  ? 

RoufTeau  generoufly  tefufed  to  write  againfl  thefe 
fathers,  becaufe  they  were  in  trouble  ;  and  you, 
their  difciple,  feize  this  unfortunate  opportunity  of 
once  more  opening  and  poifoning  thofe  fores  which 
time  had  clofed  up.  With  this  view  you  falfify,  or 
at  leaft  unfaithfully  tranflate  a  publick  infcription  ! 
This  is  not  a  very  honourable  proceeding,  fir  ;  fome 
gratitude  is  owing  to  our  firfl  mafters ;  but  above 
all  things  there  fhould  be  no  mifreprefentations. 

Upon  the  whole,  thefe  three  little  miflakes  with 
regard  to  the  Latin  tongue,  arc  of  no  great  confe- 
quence  to  the  Jews.  Confider  however,  fir,  whe- 
ther it  is  proper  that  they  fhould  ftand  in  your  new 
edition. 

§  5.  Of  the  Greek  tongue.  Of  fome  miflakes  in  ihii 
language  which  muft  certainly  he  ozuing  to  the  printer. 

You  difplay  your  erudition  chiefly,  fir,  when  the 
Greek  language  is  in  queflion  ;  this  language  has 
for  you  charms  ine.xprefiible  j  you  never  fpe;\k  of  it 


464  A      S    H    O     R    T 

but  with  raptures  ;  you  every  whereextol  its  clear- 
nefs,  copioufnefs  anti  harmony.  After  all  this,  how 
can  we  fuppofe,  Vv'ith  certain  rafh  Chriftians,  that  you 
do  not  undcrftand  Greek,  or  that  j  '  u  have  at  mofl 
but  a  fmattering  of  it  ?  Far  be  it'  From  us  to  form 
iuch  bold  conje<3:ures !  We  think  it  incumbent  oa 
us,  to  look  upon  all  thefe  finall  miftakes  into  which 
you  have  fallen,  merely  as  typographical  errors,  or 
at  mod  as  abfences  of  mind,  very  excufable  in  a 
great  man  who  is  dipt  in  twenty  fciences.  You  have 
faid,  for  inftance, 

Text.  "  They  gave  thefe  magiftrates  the  name 
*'  of  Bafilci^  which  anfwers  to  that  of  prince." 
(Philofophy  uf  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  You  have  been  teized,  fir,  with  re- 
fpe6:  to  this  word  (i)  Bafiloi  ;  you  have  been  told 
that  it  fhould  be  written  Bafileis  and  not  Baftloi,  for 
Bafiloi  is  not  Greek.  As  if  Mr.  Voltaire  could  be 
ifrnorant  of  what  children  know  !  You  have  given  a 
very  good  anfwer,  that  this  is  (2)  a  typographical 
error. 

People  have  replied,  that  it  is  hard  to  conceive 
how,  b):  a  typographical  error,  the  fame  word  fhould 
be  repeated  five  or  fix  times  in  your  works,  and  in 
every  edition  of  them,  fl;ill  in  the  fame  way,  that  is 
alv/ays  wrong,  and  never  right.  But  all  this  is  mere 
chicanery!  Altho*  it  is  hard  to  conceive  this,  yet 
there  is  no  phyfical  impoflibility  in  it.  As  for  our 
parts,  fir,  we  are  not  fo  hard  to  fatisfy  ;  the  defence 
feems  to  us  exceedingly  plaufible.  Therefore  altho* 
you  have  faid, 

Text.  "  Symbole  comes  from  Symholein,  idol 
*'  comes  from  the  Greek  eidos  a  figure,  Eidoios,  the 
*'  reprefentation  of  a  figure.     The  Greeks  had  their 

(l)  B.ifiloi.  See  the  Siifplement  to  the  Philofophy  of  Hiftory,  a  wcik 
full  of  uacon  mon  erudition,  which  Mr.  Voltaire  fays  he  has  confuted  /o- 
iiidy^nd  learneJlv-     Alaj,  what  politencfs  and  learning  !     ^ut. 

{X'l  A  i^("!^raf>h'tcat  errtr  Indeed  as  Mr.  Voltaire  very  juftly  obfcrvcs, 
the  n.a'.tcr  is  erly  a  figma  forgotten,  and  an  oi  put  for  an  li,     /tut. 


COMMENTARY.  465 

Demonot  ....  The  Demonos  of  the  Greeks,  he  " 
(Philofoph.  Dia.) 

Comment.  We  do  not  think,  fir,  that  v/e  have 
any  right  to  find  fault  with  you  about  this ;  it  would 
ill  become  us  truly  to  tell  you  that  you  (hould  have 
wrote  Eidolon  and  not  Eidolos,  for  Eido/os  is  not 
Greek.  That  the  Greeks  have  no  Demotiol  but  De- 
mones  ;  that  Demonos  for  Demoon  is  a  folecifm ;  that 
Symbokin  for  Symballein  is  a  barbarifm.  You  know 
all  thefe  things  better  than  we  do,  and  it  is  about  a 
thoufand  to  one  that  you  wrote  the  words  correctly. 

Certainly,  however,  it  is  unfortunate  that  thefe 
httle  miftakes  (hould  be  found  in  every  edition  of 
your  works,  even  in  that  which  is  executing  under 
your  own  eyes.  But  tjiefe  printers  are  fuch  idle 
rogues  J  fuch  things  will  not  furprize  any  one  that 
knows  them  !  Probably  thefe  very  people  made  you 

..  ^^^?'^\  "  ^^^fa^^^y  fhe  word  Knath,  which  fig- 

nifies  the  Phenicians,  is  notfo  harmonious  as  that 

of  Hellenes  or  Graios.''  (Philofophy  of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.     You  have  been  told  that  the  word 

grmos  is  not  Greek,  and  that  you  have  blundered  in 

naming  that  nation  whofe  character  you  fo  highly 

You  have  been  told  that  you  ought  to  have  wrote 
Hellen  and  not  Hellenos  ;  that  Kdknos  is  not  a  no- 
nimative  cafe  nor  Graios,  &c.  You  certainly  kn-A^ 
this  well,  but  your  printers  are  notfo  learned:  v^u 
probably  had  wrote    Hellen  and  Grakos  -ev 

wrote  Uellenos  or  Graios.  O  the  wretched  printer^' 
the  poor  compofitor  !  the  ignorant  correa  of  the 
prefs!  What  a  man  muft  fuffer  who  deals  w:^-  "uch 
people !  -    -    - 

§   6.     Offonie  other /light  faults,  which  ,. 
perhaps  he  the  printer's. 

And  yet  it  is  hard,  fir,  to  charge  on  vou  I-- 
ters  all  thofe  little  miftakes  relative  to  the  Gre^k 
language,  which   we  meet  with  here  and  there  in 


^66  A       S    H     O     R    T 

your  works.     There  are   fortie  whith.  canAot  juftly 
be  charged  on  them  ;  for  inflance.yoU;  fay, 

Text.  '*•  A  raven^  (if  we  believe  Suetonius) 
"  cried  out  in  the  capitol,  when  they  were  going 
"  to  aiTafiinate  Domitian,  This  is  well  done,  all  is 
'•  well." 

Comment.  It,  fir,  did  not  fignify  all  is  well, 
but  all  will  be  well,  all  v/ill  fucceed.  ■  The  Romans 
were  not  of  your  opinion,  that  fiiture  events  cannot 
be  foretold  ;  they  thought  that  even  ravens  fome- 
times  foretold  them  ;  praidiKit  ah  Uice  comix* 

Probably  this  change  of  the  future  for  the  prefent 
tenfe,  proceeds  rather  from  your  atitipathy  for  pre- 
dictions, than  from  your  correftors  of  the  prefs. 
But,  fir,  a  tranflator  is  bound  to  confult  rather  his 
text  than  his  tafte.  Eftai  is  the  future  not  the  pre- 
fent tenfe.  Here  follows  fohiething  yet  flronger, 
you  fay. 

Text.  "  John  Caftriot  was  the  fon  of  a  defpot, 
*'  that  is  of  a  vaffal  prince  ;  for  this  is  the  meaning 
*'  of  the  word  defpot  ;  and  it  is  very  extraordinary 
"  that  the  name  of  defpotick  has  been  particularly 
"  given  to  great  fovereigns  who  acquired  abfolute 
"  power.*'     (Philofophy  of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  Here,  fir,  criticks  have  triumphed. 
You  know  it,  and  indeed  this  affertion  that  defpot 
fignifies  a  vaflal-prince,  this  amazement  that  the. 
name  of  defpotick  fhould  have  been  given  particular- 
ly to  great  fovereigns  who  acquired  abfolute  power, 
&;c.  all  this  can  fcarcely  be  a  typographical  error. 
But  we  think  that  the  more  palpable  the  blunder, 
the  more  excufable  it  is  ;  the  pooreft  fcholar  knows 
that  defpot  fignifies  not  a  vaffal  prince  but  a  mafter, 
and  abfolute  mafter  who  commands  his  flaves.  AVe 
perceive  then  immediately  that  you  muft  have  wrote 
this  in  an  abfent  hour  ;  and  who  is  not  fometimes 
abfent  ?  We  can  eafily  perceive  that  you  are  pretty 
often  fo. 

From  thefe  fmall  miftakes  in  the   Greek  tongue, 
fhiill  we  infer  with  fomc  Chriftians,  that  you  are  a 


COMMENTARY.  467 

bad  Grecian  ?  This  inference  would  be  uncivil  ; 
God  forbid  that  we  fhould  pufh  deteftation  fo  far !' 
We  fhall  only  draw  two  conclufions  from  this,  the; 
firft  is,  that  when  you  tranflate  Greek  you  flioulJ 
do  it  with  more  attention  ;  the  fecond  is,  that  when- 
Greek  is  printing,  you  fhould  have  a  more  watchful 
eye  over  your  printers. 

It  is  true  thefe  precautions  are  not  neceffary  to 
perfuade  your  admirers,  that  you  are  a  mafter  ot 
Greek  ;  thefe  kind  people  will  believe  you  on  your 
word,  and  will  take,  as  long  as  you  pleafe,  fome  un- 
intelligible mangled  words  for- pure  Greek,  which 
they  do  not  underftand. 

But  furely  you  will  not  reft  fatisfied  merely  with 
the  applaufe  and  approbation  offuch  readers.  Your 
own  nation  and  foreigners  have  fome  learned  men 
among  them,  whofe  fuffrages  are  worth  looking  af- 
ter. You  have  reafon  to  fear,  left  thefe  great  enco' 
miums  of  the  Greek  language  may  appear  to  them 
to  be  an  empty  parade  of  learning ;  your  quotations, 
quackery ;  and  thefe  frequent  miftakes,  proofs  too 
convincing  of  your  fmall  ftiare  of  knowledge  in  this 
branch  of  literature. 

As  for  us,  fir,  we  have  pointed  out  thefe  miftakes, 
only  that  you  might  corred:  them  in  your  new  edi- 
tion, if  you  think  proper  ;  even  were  they  to  ftand, 
we  fhould  look  upon  them  merely  as  fpots,  light 
fpots,  which  can  caufe  neither  aftoniftiment  nor  of- 
fence. iVo;z  ego  paucis  offendar  ?)iaculis;  quas  aut  in- 
curia  fudit^  aut  humana  parum  cavit  natura.  Nature 
is  fo  weak  and  a  man  has  fo  much  bufniefs  in  this 
world ! 

SIXTEENTH      EXTRACT. 

Of  certain  Jcknces  and  arts  ;  the.feqiieL     Of  the  He- 
brew language. 
He  who  attempts   to   criticife  any  work,  fliould 
previouily  underfiand    the  language  in  which  it  is 
written. 


45S  A       S    H    O    R    T 

You  are  fenfible  of  this,  fir  j  and  for  this  reafoa 
you  have  confecrated,  they  fay,  a  great  portion  of 
your  time  and  labour  to  the  ftudy  of  the  Hebrew 
ton;;;ue.  Succefs  has  crowned  your  labours,  we  are 
convinced  of  it,  as  becomes  us. 

But  we  fear  left  others  may  entertain  fome  doubts 
on  this  head,  if  you  do  not  change  in  your  new  edi- 
tion certain  arguments  which  are  in  the  preceding 
oies.     We  fhall  quote  fome  of  them. 

§  I .  Poverty  and  difficulty  of  the  Hebrew  tongue. 
F roofs  which  the  learned  criiick  gives  of  this.  Obfer- 
vations  on  thefe  proofs. 

■  One  of  the  firft  advantages  you  have  reaped  from 
your  application  to  the  Hebrew  language  is,  your 
linding  out  that  it  is  poor  and  almoft  unintelligible. 
This  you  endeavour  to  prove. 

Text.  "  This  language,  like  all  barbarous  idi- 
*'  oms,  was  poor ;  the  fame  word  ferved  for  feve- 
"  ral  ideas." 

Comment.  We  do  not  pretend  to  fay  that  the 
fame  words  ferving  for  feveral  ideas,  is  a  proof  of 
the  copioufnefs  of  a  language,  but  is  it  on  the  con- 
trary a  proof  of  its  poverty  and  barbarifm  ? 

This  defed,  fir,  is  not  peculiar  to  barbarous  idi- 
oms ;  it  may  be  found  in  the  moft  copious  and  po- 
lite languages  ;  in  that  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and 
in  yours  too  ^  languages  which  cannot  be  called 
barbarous. 

Probably  then  your  firft  argument,  on  the  pover- 
ty and  barbarifm  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  is  no  de- 
monftration.     You  add, 

Text.  "  The  Jews,  deprlvedof  the  arts,  could 
"  not  exprefs  what  they  were  ignorant  of."  (To- 
leration.) 

Comment.  The  Jews  fpoke  the  fame  language 
as  the  Phenicians  ;  and  thefe  latter  were  acquainted 
with  the  arts,  for  they  taught  them  to  the  Greeks 
and  to  others.  Could  one  juftly  fay  that  the  people 
gf  Lucca,  who  fpeak  Italian,  have  a  poor  language. 


COMMENTARY.  469 

and  that   the  Florentines,  who   alfo  fpeak  Italian, 
have  a  rich  and  copious  language  ? 

But  you  will  perhaps  fay,  that  our  aflertion  is  not 
well  grounded,  that  the  Jews  fpoke  the  language  of 
the  Phenicians.  But,  fir,  we  aflert  this  after  fome  of 
the  illullrious  learned,  even  after  yourfelf  j  for  ac- 
cording to  you. 

Text.  "  The  Jcavs  for  a  long  time  fpoke  no 
"  other  language  in  Canaan  than  that  of  the  Phe- 
"  nicians.** 

Comment.  Nothing  is  more  certain.  The  Jews 
fpoke  the  Phenician  language  for  a  long  time  ;  and 
it  would  be  hard  to  point  out  a  period  in  which  they 
did  not  fpeak  it,  from  the  time  of  Jacob  to  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity.  Perhaps  you  will  fay  that  the  Phe- 
nician language  was  poor,  but  according  to  you  a- 
gain. 

Text.  "  The  mod:  perfeft  languages  niufi:  ne- 
**  ceflfarily  be  the  languages  of  thofe  nations  who 
*'  have  mod  cultivated  the  arts  and  fciences.  (Pre- 
miers Melanges.)' 

Comment.  This  is  very  true ;  now  the  Pheni- 
cians  cultivated  the  arts  and  fciences.  Therefore 
you  add. 

Text.  "  The  language  of  the  Phenicians  was 
"  the  language  of  an  indultrious,  commercial,  rich 
"  nation,  fpread  over  the  whole  earth."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Therefore,  fir,  their  language  mud 
have  been,  according  to  your  principles,  one  of  the 
moft  perfect  and  rich  languages ;  and  you  affert  that 
the  language  of  the  Hebrews,  who  ufed  the  fame, 
was  one  of  the  poorefl  languages.  Truly,  fir,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  reconcile  thefe  aflertions.     But, 

Text.  "  The  words  geometry,  aflronomy, 
*'  were  always  abfolutely  unknown  among  the  Jews." 
(Philof.   Dia.) 

Comment,  ift.  The  Babylonians  were  aflrono- 
mers,  the  Egyptians  geometricians,  and  the  Phe- 
nicians both.  Be  fo  kind,  fir,  as  to  tell  us  what 
were  the  names  of  aitronomy  or  geometry  at  Bib;- 

7  O 


470  A      S    H    O    R    T 

Ion  or  In  Egypt.     Inform  us  at  leaft,  how  thePhe* 
nicians  called  thefe  fciences. 

sdly,  Do  you  not  perceive,  that  your  argument 
implies,  that  every  word  of  the  Hebrew  language 
mud  be  found  in  thofe  books  which  the  ancient  He- 
brews have  leh  us  ?  Truly  a  very  reafonable  fup- 
pofition  ! 

What !  fir,  it  is  probable,  or  rather  certain  that 
all  terms,  and  all  the  fciences  of  the  Greeks  and 
Latins  have  not  come  down  to  us,  altho'  we  have 
fuch  a  number  of  books  of  both  ;  and  you  expect 
that  all  the  words  of  the  Hebrew  language,  all  the 
fciences  of  the  Hebrews,  fhould  be  found  in  a  fmgle 
volume,  which  has  efcaped  the  fate  of  fo  many  others, 
a  mere  pocket-volume ! 

3dly,  Do  you  know,  fir,  the  fignification  of  the 
word  thekounah  ?  You  will  anfwer  perhaps  that  this 
word  is  not  in  the  Bible  ;  we  know  it  ;  but  altho' 
the  derivative  is  not  to  be  found  there,  yet  the 
root  is. 

Text.  "  Hov/  could  the  Hebrev\rs  have  fea- 
terms,  they,  who  before  Solomon,  had  not  a  boat  ?"' 
(Premiers  Melanges.) 

Comment.  How  can  the  people  of  Geneva,  who 
are  not  mafters  of  an  advice  boat,  properly  fitted 
out,  have,  in  their  language,  terms  of  fea-war  ?  Be- 
caufe  the  people  of  Geneva  fpeak  French,  and  the 
French  have  a  fleet  properly  equipped,  and  all  the 
terms  of  fea-war  in  their  lanpuage. 

Thus  the  Hebrews  may  have  had  fea-terms,  with- 
out having  a  boat,  becaufe  they  fpoke  the  language 
of  the  Phenicians,  Avho  had  fleets. 

Hov/ever,  fir,  when  you  affirm,  that  before  Solo- 
mon the  Hebrews  had  not  a  boat,  you  forget  Debo- 
rah's fong,  which  reprefents  Afer  at  eafe  in  his  ha- 
vens, and  Dan  buficd  with  his  fliips. 

Text.  "  How  could  they  have  any  philofophi- 
"  cal  terms,  they  who  were  plunged  in  fuch  profound 
"  ignorance,  until  they  began  to  learn  fomething  in 
"  their  captivity  ;"     (Ibidem.) 


COMMENTARY.  471 

Comment.  How  could  they  have  any  philofo- 
phical  terms  ?  The  fame  way  that  the  Phenicians  got 
them. 

They  who  were  plunged  infuch  profound  ignorancey 
he.  Here,  fir,  you  exaggerate  very  much.  Not 
to  mention  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  Jeremiah, 
Ifaiah,  and  other  prophets,  Solomon  who  wrote  fo 
much,  David  the  author  of  fo  many  tender  and 
fublime  pieces  of  poetry,  &c.  lived  before  the  cap- 
tivity, and  they  were  not  men  plunged  in  the  raolt 
profound  ignorance.  It  could  be  proved,  that  many 
who  are  very  juftly  efteemed  in  oar  days  as  writers  of 
merit,  fall  fhort  of  thofe  ancient  Hebrews,  not  only 
in  fubhmity  of  thought,  juflnefs,  and  variety  of  ima- 
ges, but  even  in  the  energy,  fire,  and  copioufnefs  of 
exprelTion. 

Plunged  infuch  profound  ignorance.  This  is  a  paf- 
fionate  exprefTion,  fir  ;  anger  is  over-coming  you. 
Let  us  fhift  the  fubjeft. 

§  2.  Of  the  obfcurity  of  the  Hebrew  language. 
Whether  if  is  fuch^  that  our  f acred  writings  are  abfo- 
lutely  unintelligible  ? 

You  pafs  from  this  to  the  difficulty,  or  rather  im- 
poffibility  of  underftanding  our  language. 

Text.  "  This  language  labours  under  difficul- 
ties infurmountable  ;  it  is  a  mixture  of  Phenician 
and  Syrian,  &c.  and  this  ancient  mixture  is  at 
this  day  much  adulterated.  The  Hebrews  never 
had  but  two  moods  for  the  verbs,  the  prefent  and 
"  the  future,  the  other  moods  are  guefs-work. 
"  Each  adverb  has  twenty  different  fignifications. 
"  The  fame  word  is  taken  in  contrary  fenfes." 
(Toleration.) 

Comment.  Let  us  proceed  to  examine.  This 
language  has  difficulties  infurmountable.  But  what  an- 
cient language  has  not  its  difficulties  ?  Is  there  aa 
ancient  writer,  even  a  Latin  one,  who  has  not  fome 
difficulties  infurmountable  ?  And  yet  the  greatefl 
part  of  thefe  writings  is  underftood.  Ihs  fame  may 
be   faid   of  our  writings ;  altho'  obfcure  in  many 


472  A      S    H     O     R     T 

places,  yet  they  are  in  general  clear  enough  to  con- 
vey certain  knowledge,  with  regard  to  every  thing 
that  ought  to  be  known  refpecting  doctrine  and 
morals. 

It  is  a  mixture  of  Pbenician  and  Syrian.  The  He- 
brew was  lefs  a  mixture  of  Phenician  and  Syrian, 
even  than  the  language  of  the  Phenicians  ;  it  was 
alfo  fundamentally  the  language  of  the  Syrians, 
Caldeans,  Arabians,  &c..  All  theie  idioms  were 
really  lb  many  dialects  of  a  general  language,  which 
was  common  to  all  thefe  nations,  which  may  be 
called  the  oriental  language.  Thus  (i)  the  truly 
learned  fpeak ;  and  if  you  had  obferved  this,  you 
would  not  have  fallen  into  fo  many  little  miftakes  and 
weak  arguments. 

And  this  a?icient  mixture  is  at  this  day  much  adulte^ 
rated.  AVe  do  not  pretend  to  fay  that  the  Hebrew 
tongue  has  been  preferved  without  any  adulteration  ; 
this  could  fcarcely  be  affirmed  of  the  Greek  or 
Latin. 

Every  adverb  has  twenty  different  fignificatkns. 
Open  the  firft  Greek  Lexicon,  fir,  and  you  will 
find  that  mod  of  the  Greek  prepofitions  have  twenty 
different  fignifications  ;  and  that  the  fame  word  is 
very  often  taken  in  contrary  fenfes. 

The  Hebreiv  has  but  two  moods,  the  prefent  and  the 
future.  The  famous  Grammarian  Dumarfais  would 
have  faid  two  tenfes.  The  prefent  and  the  future  are 
tenfes,  not  moods.  We  mufl  forgive  this  little  gram- 
matical flip  in  a  great  man  who  is  taken  up  with  twen- 
ty fciences. 

-  It  is  true  the  Hebrew  has  but  two  tenfes,  and  the 
others  are  guefs-work,  but  it  is  generally  very  eafy 
to  ffuefs  at  them. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  readily  grant  that  our  lan- 
guage would  have  been  more  clear,  if  it  had  had 
all  the  tenfes  of  the  Greek  and  French  language ; 

(i)  The  truly  learmd.  See  among  Others  the  works  of  the  learned  Mf- 
chttclis ;  l.outh,  dc  fajra  potfi  Hcbrxorum,  &o, 


COMMENTARY. 


473 


and   we   do  not  deny  that  the  want  of  thefe  Is  the 
caufe  of  fome  obfcurity  in  our  facred  writings. 
§   3.     For  IV bat  reafons  chiefly  the  Hebrew  language 

appears  poor  and  objcure. 
But  what  principally  contributes  to  make  this 
language  appear  poor  and  obfcure  is,  that  we  have 
at  prefent  but  one  book,  of  no  confiderable  bulk,  in 
it.  What  language  would  not  appear  in  the  fame 
light,  if  we  had  as  few  remains  of  it  \  How  would 
even  the  Greek  tongue  appear,  if  out  of  all  the 
-Greek  books,  none  had  conje  down  to  us  but  Hero- 
dotus, Efchilus  and  Pinder  ? 

This,  fir,  is  the  true  reafon  of  the  difficulty  and 
actual  poverty  of  the  Hebrew.  Hence  a  multitude 
of  words  relative  to  the  arts  and  fciences  are  abfo- 
lutely  unknown  to  us  at  prefent,  altho'  they  for- 
merly made  up  part  of  this  language.  For  inllance, 
how  many  words,  of  which  we  have  not  any  idea 
now,  would  have  been  found  in  the  works  of  So- 
lomon, on  botany  and  natural  hiflory,  if  thefe 
works  had  been  preferved  !  Hence  too  it  happens 
that  we  have  not  the  fame  advantage  in  Hebrew  as 
in  other  languages,  •  of  comparing  a  number  of  texts 
with  one  another,  in  order  to  clear  up  the  mean- 
ing of  words.  Therefore,  in  fpeaking  of  the  pover- 
ty of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  you  ought  to  have  infill- 
ed principally  on  this  reafon ;  and  this  is  precifely 
the  one  which  you  do  not  mention. 

Altho'  this  difadvantage  is  the  necefiary  caufe  of 
obfcurity  in  various  paflages  of  our  facred  writings, 
yet  it  prevents  us  not  from  underftanding  very  clear- 
ly the  largefl  and  moft  ufeful  pait  of  them.  And 
what  remains  of  our  writers,  is  fufficlent  to  convince 
an  impartial  man  of  letters,  that  their  language, 
fo  far  from  being  poor  and  dry,  as  you  fay,  was 
'  on  the  contrary  copious  and  rich.  Let  a  man  read 
Jeremiah  and  Ifalah,  and  tell  us  whether  they  arc 
deficient  in  purity,  elegance,  fublimity,  and  pomp 
of  expreiTion.  Does  David  want  thefe  in  his  Pialms, 
or  MoftiS   in  his    Canticles  ?    Does   the    author   of 


474  A       S     H     O     R     T 

the  Book  of  Job,  our  Homer,  the  mofl  ancient  and 
perfed;  of  our  poets,  want  them  ?  You  are  a 
poor  Hebrean  indeed,  fir,  if  in  their  divine  writ- 
ings you  have  found  the  Hebrew  language  dry  and 
poor  ! 

We  (hall  now,  with  your  leave,  proceed  from 
your  general  refledions  on  our  language,  to  fome 
particulars. 

§  4.  0/*  the  word  Ifrael.  Whether  'Jacob  could 
not  get  the  name  of  Ifrael,  and  the  Hebrews  that  of 
Ifraelites,  '////  after  or  during  the  Bahylonifh  capti- 
vity.    The  critick^s  forgetfulnefs  and  contradidions. 

Text.  "  Philo  fays  that  Ifrael  is  a  Caldean 
"  word,  that  it  is  a  name  which  the  Caldeans  gave 
*'  tojuft  men  confecrated  to  God;  that  Ifrael  fig- 
"  nifies  feeing  God.  This  therefore  is  fufficient 
"  proof,  that  the  Jews  did  not  call  Jacob  Ifrael  and 

thcmfelves    Ifraelites,    until    they   had   got    fome 
'=  knowledge  of  the    Caldean  tongue  ;    now   they 

could  not  get  any  knowledge  of  it  until  they 
"  became  ilaves  in  Caldca.     Is  it  probable  that  in 

the  deferts  of  Arabia   Petrpea  they  had   already 

learned  the  Caldean  tongue  V*  (Philofophy  of 
Hiftory.) 

Comment.  We  grant,  fir,  that  Philo  fays  If- 
rael is  a  Caldean  word,  and  that  the  Jews  did 
not  learn  the  Caldean  language  in  the  deferts  of 
Arabia. 

From  this  you  infer,  that  they  could  not  get  any 
knowledge  of  this  language,  until  they  became  ilaves 
in  Caldea.  We  beg  leave  to  fay,  fir,  that  this  is  far 
from  a  juft  inference. 

In  the  firfi:  place  your  memory  is  faulty.  You 
do  not  recoiled  that  Abraham  was  a  Caldean,  that 
his  wife  Sarah,  his  nephew  Lot  and  all  their  fa- 
mily were  of  Caldea  ;  that  Rebecca  the  w'ife  of  Ifaac, 
was  of  the  family  of.  Nachor,  the  brother  of  Abra- 
ham, and  a  Caldean  too ;  that  Jacob  threw  himfelf 
into  the  arms  of  this  Caldean  family,  to  avoid  the 
rcfcntnient  of  his  brother  ;    that  he  married  tvro 


cc 


li 


(C 


COMMENTARY.  475 

wives  there  and  had  many  children ;  and  that  a  lit- 
tle time  after  he  had  quitted  this  family,  he  received 
the  name  of  Ifrael  from  the  angel.  This  patriarch 
who  defcended  from  the  Caldeans,  who  had  lived  fo 
long  in  a  Caldean  family,  and  his  children  who  were 
born  there,  might  have  had  fome  knowledge  of  the 
Caldean  language. 

We  may  add,  as  we  obferved  above,  that  accord- 
ing to  many  of  the  learned,  the  languages  which 
were  then  fpoke  in  Caldea,  Syria,  andPalelline,  &;c. 
were  only  fo  many  dialefts  of  one  language,  and  that 
according  to  yourfelf,  the  Hebrew  was  a  jargon  of 
mixed  Caldean  ;  therefore  the  Hebrews  might  have 
the  ufe  and  knowledge  of  a  Caldean  word,  without 
becoming  flaves  to  the  Caldeans. 

Let  us  add  laftly,  that  Philo  the  Helleniftick  Jew, 
who  was  probably  much  better  acquainted  with  Greek 
than  with  Caldean,  is  miftaken  with  regard  to  the  o- 
rigin  and  fignification  of(i)  the  word  Ifrael;  this 
name,  which  was  given  to  Jacob  after  his  wreftle  with 
the  angel,  is  very  pure  Hebrew,  compounded  of  two 
very  pure  Hebrew  roots,  which  fignify  to  prevail,  to 
wreftle  with  advantage  (2)  againfl:  God,  as  is  ex- 
plained in  Genefis. 

To  the  authority  of  Philo,  you  add  that  of  Jofe- 
phus.     You  fay. 

Text.  "  Ifrael  fignifies  feeing  God,  as  Philo  in- 
"  forms  us  in  his  Treatife  of  Rewards  and  Punifli- 
"  ments,  and  as  the  hiftorian  Jofephus  fays  in  his 
"  anfwer  to  Appion.'*  (Homlie  fur  I'Atheifme, 
Diftionaire  Philof.) 

Comment.  When  we  read  over  this  paflage,  and 
three  or  four  more,  in  which  you  repeat  nearly  the 

(l)  The  ivord Ifrael.  This  word  might  abfolutely  fignify  in  the  Caldean 
and  Hebrew  language,  ytcf/i^g  God ;  but  another  ligRification  net  Icfs  confor- 
mable to  the  Hebrew  roots,  cauied  this  naaie  to  be  given  to  Jacob.  See  Ge- 
r.efis,  chap.   3 J-  v.   28.     Edit. 

(a)  Ag;ainQ  God.  That  is,  againft  the  anpjel  of  God,  the  angels  are  fomc- 
times  called  God's  Elohim  in  Scripture  The  angel  fays  to  Jacob  according 
to  the  Hebrew  text,  thou  haft  fou^!»t  againft  the  Eloiiim,  (againil  the  Gcdi, 
that  is  the  angels,)  and  againft  men,  and  thou  hall  reniiified  confjuc- 
ror.     Aut. 


476  A      SHORT     - 

fame  things,  we  afked  ourfelves,  did  Jofephus  fay 
this,  or  did  Mr.  Voltaire  make  a  falfe  quotation  ? 

In  the  midft  of  doubt  we  read  over  feveral  times 
his  anfwer  toAppion,  without  finding  any  thing  in 
it,  fimilar  to  what  you  make  him  fay. 

Tired  of  fruitlefs  fearches  we  read  over  his  anti- 
quities, and  we  found  in  them  precifely  the  contrary 
of  what  you  afcribe  to  him.  It  is  faid  there  (i)  ex- 
prefsly  that  after  thewreftle,  the  angel  ordered  Jacob 
to  affume  the  name  of  Ifrael,  which  fignifies  in  He- 
brew, ivreJlUng  againji  the  angel  of  God  and  reftji'mg 
him.  Such  credit,  fir,  muft  be  given  to  your  quo- 
tations, even  when  repeated  in  three  or  four  places. 

Come  again  and  tell  us,  that  Ifrael  is  a  Caldcaii 
name,  that  Jofephus  affirms  it,  and  in  your  ironical 
ftyle,  that  probably  the  Ifraelites  did  not  learn  the 
Caldean  language  in  the  deferts  of  Arabia  Petrsea. 
This  irony  we  think,  fir,  is  no  proof  of  the  goodnefs 
of  your  memory,  or  of  the  extent  of  your  knowledge 
in  the  Hebrew  and  Caldaick  tongues. 

§  5.  Of  the  names  of  God  in  ufe  amongft  the  Jews, 
Mifiakes  and  contradidions  of'  the  illujirious  writer  on 
this  fubj eel.     Of  the  word  El. 

Nor  do  you  give  better  proofs  of  your  knowledge 
by  the  manner  in  which  you  fpeak  of  the  names  of 
God,  ufed  by  our  fathers.     You  fay. 

Text.  "  Thefe  puppies  of  Jews  are  of  fo  late 
"  a  date,  that  they  had  not  a  word  in  their  language 
"  even  to  fignify  God."  (Philof.  Di£i:.  Raifon  par 
alphabet.  Dialogues.) 

Comment.  Thcfe  puppies.  This  Is  not  a  decent 
expreflion,  fir,  and  you  ufe  it  often.  When  you 
bellow  it  on  worthy  members  of  literature  it  gives 
oiTence  ;  but  when  you  apply  it  to  a  whole  nation,  it 
only  excites  laughter. 

Are  offo  late  a  date.  The  Jews  never  pretended 
that  they  were  the  mod  ancient  people  in  the  world, 
iuch  a  pretenfion  would  contradict  all  their  annals. 

(l)  ExprcfJy.     Sec  his  Antcjuities,  lib-  I,  ch.  2-.     Ai^. 


COMMENTARY.  a,']^ 

They  had  not  a  word  in  their  language,  ^c.  In  the 
iirft  place,  fir,  permit  us  to  a(k  you  what  was  the 
firft  Jewifh  language  ?  For  in  Ihort  thefe  puppies  did 
not  arife  out  of  the  earth  ;  they  were  born  among 
fome  nations  more  ancient  than  themfelves  ;  confe- 
quently  they  had  a  language.  Pray,  fir,  what  was 
this  ancient  language,  ia  which  they  had  not  a  name 
for  God  ? 

Even  tojignify  God,  This  is  new  if  not  whimfical. 
What!  fiT,  when  Abraham  and  his  family  quitted - 
their  native  country  by  God's  command,  when  they 
removed  into  a  ftrange  land  for  the  fake  of  freely 
worfliipping  the  true  God,  Abraham  and  his  family 
had  not  a  word  in  their  language  to  fignify  God ! 
Can  you  be  ferious  when  you  fay  this  ? 

Abraham  a  Caldean,  and  his  family  Caldeans  alfo, 
probably  fpoke  Caldean.  Now  the  Caldeans  at  lead 
muft  have  had  a  word  in  their  language  to  fignify 
God,  witnefs,  according  to  you,  Ifrael^  feeing  God, 
Babel,  city  of  God ^  El,  the  name  of  God.     For, 

Text.  "  This  name  (El)  was  originally  Caldean." 

Comment.  And  can  we  conceive  that  the  father 
of  the  faithful,  who  was  a  Caldean,  did  not  know 
the  name  of  God  in  Caldean  ?  Do  yoii  perceive,  fir, 
how  fenfible,  judicious  and  conclufive  all  this  is  ? 
Here  follows  fomething  not  lefs  fo  ; 

Text,  "  This  word  El,  fignif^ed  God  among 
*^  the  firft  Phenicians.  (Philof.  of  Hid.  article  Phe- 
"  nicians.)  The  Jews  took  from  the  Phenicians  all 
**  the  names  which  they  gave  to  God."     (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  Therefore  Abraham,  a  Caldean, 
with  his  Caldean  family,  came  into  Phenicia,  to  bor« 
row  a  Caldean  word.  Thefe  fine  things  are  coolly 
related  to  us  in  the  Melanges  de  Philofophie,  in  the 
Raifon  par  Alphabet,  which  might  better  be  called 
( i)  Abfurdity  par  Alphabet  ! 

3  P 

(l)  Abfurdity  par  4tfbalit-  This  jeft  is  not  to  our  tafte ;  we  think  that  cur 
authors  indoJgeJ  thrntfeHes  in  it,  only  bccaufc  i;  was  copied  from  fome  04 
-Mr.  TMtair«'»  wil.     £diu 


473  A      S     H     O     R    T 

§   6.     Sequel  of  the  fivne  fuhjed.     Of  the  ivord  Ja- 
ho,  or  .fehovah. 

The  Jews  never  pronounced  the  word  fehovah 
but  with  the  profoundefl  refpect  ;  it  is  to  them  the 
holy  and  dreadful  name.  ChrilHans  who  worfliip 
the  fame  God,  ought  never  to  pronounce  this  word 
irreverently.  Let  us  fee,  fir,  whether  you  fpeak  of 
it  with  truth  at  lead. 

Text.  "  The  Jews  were  obliged  to  borrow  the 
**  name  of  fehovah  or  faho  from  the  Syrians." 
(Raifon  par  Alphabet,  Dialogues.) 

Comment.  This,  fir,  ought  to  be  proved;  until 
then  we  may  doubt  of  it,  and  we  may  the  morejufl- 
ly  do  fo,  becaufe  you  fay  in  another  place. 

Text.  "  They  borrowed  this  word  from  the 
^-  Phenicians,  (the  word  fehovah,''*')  (Philof.  Dic- 
tionary.) 

Comment.  This  afiertion  fomewhat  contradicts 
the  former,  and  you  give  no  better  proof  it  ;  this  is 
depending  much'  on  the  kindnefs  or  credulity  of 
tour  readers. 

You  fliGuld  have  informed  them  at  leafi:,  from 
which  of  thefe  two  nations,  the  Jews  firfl:  borrowed 
this  word  ;  and  v/hy,  after  borrowing  it  from  one, 
they  borrowed  it  after  from  the  other.  We  doubt 
not  but  you  could  fay  many  very  curious  things  on. 
this  fubject.     But  this  is  not  all,  you  add. 

Text.  "  They  borrowed  this  word  from  the 
"  Egyptians,  as  the  truly  learned  believe.** 

Comment.  They  therefore  borrowed  it  from  the 
Syrians,  Egyptians  and  Phenicians  ;  three  loans  in- 
flead  of  one.  Indeed,  fir,  you  fay  too  much  to  be 
believed.  With  all  thefe  reafons  you  would  almoft; 
perfuade  us,  that  this  word  is  of  Hebrew  extradion. 

They  borrowed  ihh  word  from  the  Egyptians,  as  the 
truly  learned  believe.  The  tndy  learned,  fir  !  You 
cannot  be  of  thiCn.umber,  for  you  fay  that  the  Jews 
borrowed  this  word  {\^ from  the  Phenicians  only.  KwX 

(l)  Fro^  the  Pliniclans  only.     See  Philofophical  Didlionary.     Aui. 


C  O  IVI  M  JE  N  T  A  R  Y.  479 

yet  you  are  of  this  number;  for  you  fay  alfo  that 
they  borrowed  it  from  the  Egyptians.  This  (liews  the 
advantage  of  contradicling  one's  felf. 

We  do  not  pretend  however  to  deny  that  the 
word  Jehovah  was  known  by  the  Egyptians  ;  they 
certainly  knew  it  after  the  prodigies  which  they  faw 
performed  in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  But  did  they 
know  it  before  ?  You  give  no  proofs  of  this,  and  we 
think  that  a  contrary  conclufion  may  be  drawn  from 
the  words  of  Pharaoh,  "  Who  is  Jehovah  that  I 
"  fhould  obey  his  voice  and  let  Ifrael  go  ?  I  know 
"  not  Jehovah  and  I  will  not  let  Ifrael  go.'* 

Text.  "  The  word  Jaho  was  fo  common  in 
"  Egypt,  that  Diodorus  Siculus  ufes  it."  (Philof. 
of  Hiftory.) 

Comment.  Diodorus  Siculus  may  have  ufed  It, 
altho'  it  was  not  common  in  the  Eaft,  and  it  may 
have  been  common  in  the  Eafl:  in  the  time  of  Diodo- 
rus, without  having  been  fo  in  the  time  of  the  anci- 
ent Hebrews.  There  is  an  interval  of  more  than 
one  thoufand  five  hundred  years  between  Mofes  and 
Diodorus  Siculus  j  it  is  proper  not  to  lofe  light  of 
thefe  periods. 

Infhort,  fir,  if  the  word  Jaho  was  common  in  the 
eaftfrom  the  earlieft  times,  as  were  thofe,  according 
to  yourfelf,  (i)  £/,  Eloha,  Elohim^  Adojini,  Baal,  Be), 
this  is  an  additional  proof  of  what  we  have  already 
advanced,  that  in  thefe  early  ages  efpecially,  the  lan- 
guages of  the  eaft  had  a  clofe  refemblance,  and  that 
they  were  no  more  than  dialedts  of  the  fame  language; 
fo  that  a  great  many  words  were  common  to  them 
all,  and  he  that  underftood  one  language  eafily  un- 
derftood  the  others ;  juft  as  he  who  underltands 
Spanifn,  can  eafily  underftand  Italian,  and  he  that 
underltood  the  Greek  of  Athens,  might  eafily  under- 
fland  the  Greek  of  Ionia. 


fij  Tie  nvords  El.  Mr.  Voltaire  obferves  that  the  word  iT/has  a  clofe 
relation  to  the  Arabian  word /4//a,  the  ohfcrvation  is  juft,  and  this  is  another 
pro  «f  of  the  orijrinal  refembbnce  of  all  thefe  ancient  dialedls  cf  the  oriental 
Janguage.     Aut. 


43®  A      S     H     O     R     T 

§  7.  Of  the  names  of  Angels, 
-L  You  ftrive  hard,  fir,  to  perfuade  your  readers, 
that  the  Hebrews  knew  nothing  of  angels  *till  after 
the  Babylonifh  captivity.  Various  reflexions  fcat- 
tered  in  your  Raifon  par  Alphabet  and  your  Philo- 
fcphie  de  THiftoire  tend  to  eftablifii  this  point. 
You  fav. 

Text.  **  In  the  laws  of  the  Jews,  that  is  in  Le- 
"  viticus  and  Deuteronomy,  there  is  not  the  leaft 
''  mention  made  of  aagels  ;  but  in  the  hiftories  of 
"  the  Jews  there  is  much  talk  of  them."  (Philof, 
Dift.  article  Angels.) 

Comment.  Altho*  no  mention  is  made  of  angels 
in  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  yet  they  are  fpoken 
of  in  Exodus,  a  book  which  contains  a  great  part  of 
our  laws,  as  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy  contain 
part  of  OUT  hiflo<ry  ;  it  becomes  a  learned  Hebrean, 
fuch  as  you  are,  to  be  a  little  better  acquainted  with 
our  books  and  their  contents.     You  add,  at  leaft. 

Text*    "  It  is  well  known  that  the  Jewifh  clan 

borrowed  the  names  which  the  Caldeans  gave  tO' 

angels,  when  the  Jewifh  nation,  was  captire  in  Ba- 
«  bylon."      (Ibidem.) 

Comment.  //  is  well  known*  This^  is  theafler- 
tion,  now  let  us  fee  the  proof. 

Text.  '^.  Thefe  words  Raphael,  Gabriel,  &c. 
*'  are  Caldean.  The  Jews  did  not  know  them  un- 
"  til  the  captivity  ;  for  before  the  hiftory  of  Tobias 
"  We  cannot  find  the  name  of  any  angel,  either  in 
"  the  Pentateuch  or  in  any  Hebrew  book/'  (Philof, 
of  Hift.  article  Angels.) 

'*  Sathan  is  found  in  Job,  but  who  rs  fo  little 
*'  verfed  in  antiquity  as  not  to  know  that  the  word 
«  Sathan  is  Caldean  ?"     (Ibidem.) 

Comment..  I'hefe  words  Raphael,  ^c  are  Calde- 
an. We  might  ftop  you  here,  fir,  and  maintain 
that  thefe  words  are  as  much  Hebrew  as  Caldean,. 
and  that  as  they  are  derived  from  the  fame  language, 
which  is  the  common  parent  of  the  Hebrew  and  Cal- 


COMMENTARY.         .    4SE 

dean  dialers,  they  belong  no  more  to  one  of  thefe 
dialeds  than  to  the  other. 

But  even  fuppofe  thefe  words  were  rather  Cal- 
dean  than  Hebrew,  would  it  follow  from  thence  that 
the  Jews  could  not  know  them  until  the  Babylonifh 
captivity  ?  We  have  already  ftiewn  the  contrary. 

Before  the  hijiory  of  Tobias^  ive  cannot  fnd the  name 
of  any  angel,  either  in  the  Pentateuch,  he.  There- 
fore thefe  woids  are  not  Hebrew,  therefore  the  He- 
brews did  not  know  them  until  the  captivity.  You 
always  fuppofe,  fir,  that  all  the  words  of  the  Hebrew 
toneue  mufl  be  found  in  the  books  prior  to  the  cap- 
tivity, and  that  the  Hebrews  knew  no  more  but  what 
is  found  in  them. 

The  fame  may  be  faid  of  the  word  Sathan  ;  it  is 
as  much  an  Hebrew  as  a  Caldean  word,  at  lead  if 
you  will  believe  a  man  (1)  fomewhat  verfed  in  anti- 
quity ;  and  altho'  this  word  were  Caldaick,  your 
conclufion  would  not  neceflarily  follow,  that  the  au- 
thor of  the  Book  of  Job  was  an  Arabian.  But  let 
us  now  lay  afide  the  book  of  Job ;  we  may  perhaps 
hereafter  have  occafion  to  fay  fomething  to  you  con- 
cerning it. 

§.  8.  Of  fame  other  Hebrew  and  Phenician  words  ^ 
hfe. 

You  have  ventured,  fir,  to  tranflate  fome  Hebrew 
and  Phenician  words  ;  and  you  have  not  ahvavs  done 
it  with  fuch  exatlnefs  as  might  be  expefted  from  a 
man  of  your  knowledge  in  the  oriental  languages. 
Text.  "  Kiriath  Sepher  fignifies  the  country  of 
Archives,  Muth  or  Moth,  matter  j  Colpi  Jabo,  the 
fpirit  of  God,  the  wind  of  God,  or  rather  the 
mouth  of  God,  &c.  (Philof.  ot  Hiftory.) 
Comment.  Kiriath  Sepher  does  not  fignify  the 
country  of  Archives,  but  the  city  of  Books.  Out  of 
a  city  you  form  a  country.  This  is  allowing  too 
great  meafure.     Muth  or  Moth,  fir,  does  not  fignify 

(l)    Someiuhat  •oerfei  in  antiquity.     The    Isarncd  Mr.   Michaelis.      See  lij'* 

Notes  on  the  ccicbfiKeU  bifliop  Loutli'i  Trsatilc  </j /«/•<»  P»^ji   Hdnejrr-:. 
4ui. 


« 


482  A       S     H     O     R     T 

matter  but  dijath  ;  it  is  Mot  that  fignifies  matter. 
Such  a  diiFerence  do  the  letters  /  or  th  make  in 
words. 

Colpi  Jabo,  the  fpirit,  the  ivind^  or  rather  the  jnouth 
of  God,  You  hefitate,  fir,  you  are  doubtful  of  the 
iignlfication,  and  in  the  midll  of  your  confufion  you 
determine  ill.  Col^  is  the  voice,  Pi,  the  mouth,  Ja- 
ho,  God,  Co/pi  Jaho,  the  word  of  the  mouth  of  God. 
See  Bochart. 

(i)  Some  learned  chriftians  have  already  pointed 
out  thefe  little  miftakes,  they  have  concluded,  one 
of  them,  that  you  fhould  not  decide  with  fuch  au- 
thority with  refpect  to  the  oriental  languages  ;•  ano- 
ther, that  you  have  a  very  fuperficial  knowledge  of 
them  ;  another  flill  ....  But  why  fliould  we  be  re- 
peating to  you  criticifms  which  have  greatly  incenf- 
ed  you  ?  Let  us  be  fatisfied  with  praying  you  to  cor- 
real thefe  fmall  inadvertencies,  from  which  we  are 
forry  to  fee  that  fuch  difagreeable  confequences  have 
been  drawn.  Our  poor  endeavours  have  this  only 
for  their  obje£t. 

Sir,  when  a  man  attempts  to  make  a  general  re- 
volution in  the  minds  of  men,  he  fliould  have,  if  }iGt 
the  gift  of  tongues,  yet  a  decent  knowledge  of  them. 

SEVENTEENTH     EXTRACT. 

Sequel  of  fcicnccs  and  arts.  Oflogick,  Of  certain  ar^ 
ginnents  of  Mr.  Voltaire. 

It  is  not  fiiHicient  to  v/rite  in  an  eafy,  pleafing  man- 
ner, there  mufh  be  found  reafoning  bendes.  With- 
out this  the  mod  brilliant  ftyle  will  only  dazzle  the 
writer,  and  deceive  the  reader. 

"We  are  far  from  thinking,  fir,  that  you  have  neg- 
leiSled  this  part  fo  neceffary  to  a  good  v/riter.  On 
the  contrary,  we  are  fully  perfuaded  that  you  poffefs 
It  ill  an  eminent  degree  ;  but   if  we  are  not    milla- 

'^l)  ^ o.-Kc  li-arncd  Chrtfrciis-  See  Defence  of  the  Books  nf:hc  Old  TeQa- 
nient,  SujU'ltmcnt  to  the  Pliilofuphy  of  Hidory,  Refutation  of  certain  arti- 
cles in  the  l*hibfopliica!  Dii'ticnaiy,  ^c. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  483 

ken,  you  fometimes  foar  fo  high  above  the  ccmnicn 
rules  of  logic,  that  the  generality  of  readers  cau 
hardly  perceive  the  whole  (trength  of  your  arp-u- 
ments.  Of  this  v^^e  have  given  feveral  indances  ;  we 
fhall  now  produce  a  few  more  feiedted  by  chance, 
juft  as  they  fell  in  our  way. 

§    I.      Of  the  yeivijh  ivritings. 

We  believe  that  our  facred  writings  have  been  in- 
fpired.  All  feels  of  Chriflians  look  upon  them  in 
the  fame  light.  Let  us  fee  how  you  reafon  in  confe- 
quenceof  this. 

Text.  "  You  mufl:  know  that  all  the  writings 
"  of  the  Jewifh  nation  were  necelTary  to  the  world, 
*'  for  how  could  God  infpire  ufelefs  writings  ?  And 
"  if  thefe  writings  were  neceffary,  how  comes  it 
"  that  any  of  them  were  loft  or  corrupted  ?"  (Let- 
ter of  a  Quaker.) 

Comment.  Probably,  fir,  you  thought  this  an  ex- 
cellent argument  ;  but  perhaps  fome  readers  will 
think  other  wife.  We  confefs  it,  we  are  of  the  num- 
ber. 

I  ft.  We  did  not  know  that  any  one  is  obliged  to 
think,  that  all  the  writings  of  the  Jewifh  nation  were 
neceffary  .to  the  v.orld  ;  nobody  ever  faid  or  thought 
it  before  you.     How  ufeful  it  is  to  read  you  ! 

cdly,  Muft  writings  be  neceffary  to  the  world 
to  make  God  infpire  them?  May  he  not  infpire 
fuch  as  may  be  ufetul  at  certain  times  and  to  cer- 
tain perfons  ?  And  could  you  prove,  that  the  loft 
writingsof  the  Jevvifli  nation  have  not  been  ufeful  in 
the  times,  and  to  the  perfons  for  whom  they  were 
written  t 

3dly,  It  appears  too,  that  there  is  fome  difference 
between  being  iifeful  and  being  neceffary^  between  be- 
ing ufeful  to  fome  perfons,  and  being  neceilary  to 
the  world  ;  and  we  have  reafon  to  believe  that  he 
who  confounds  thefe  terms  does  not  reafon  very  juft- 

Laftly,  Som.e  people  will  think  that  you  oufrht  to 
have  named  thofe  facred  books  of  the'jew^s,  which 


484  A      S    H    O    R    T 

you  fuppofe  to  have  been  corrupted  ;  for  we  know 
none  of  them  that  have  been  corrupted  in  any  im- 
portant and  effential  point.  Perhaps  you  do  not  take 
this  word  in  the  common  acceptation.  11  this  be  the 
cafe,  you  Ihould  inform  your  readers  of  it  in  the  new 
edition. 

§  2.  0/"  certain   refiirredions. 

Our  facred  writings  fpeak  of  fome  particular  re- 
fur  rections,  operated  by  our  prophets ;  we  read  of 
fuch  too  in  your  facred  writings  ;  but  all  thefe  fafts, 
fir,  appear  very  improbable  to  you  ;  you  think  you 
can  demonftrate  the  impoffibility  of  them  yourfelf, 
and  in  order  t^o  do  it  you  thus  reafon. 

Text.  "  To  make  a  dead  man  rife  again,  at  the 
*'  end  of  forae  days,  it  is  neceffary  that  all  the  im- 
"  perceptible  parts  of  his  body,  which  had  been  cx- 
"  haled  in  the  air,  and  which  the  winds  had  carried 
"  off,  fliould  return  to  their  proper  places  ;  that  the 
*'  worms,  birds,  and  animals  that  have  fed  on  the 
"  corpfe  Ihould  reflore  each  what  it  took  away. 
*'  The  worms  which  have  fattened  on  the  entrails  of- 
"  tbi  man  have  been  eaten  by  fwallows,  thefe  fwal- 
**  lows  have  been  devoured  by  other  birds,  and  thefe 
"  again  by  hawks,  thefe  hawks  again  by  vultures  ; 
"  each  of  thefe  mufl  reftore  precifely  what  belonged 
*'  to  the  dead  man,  otherwife  he  cannot  be  the  fame 
"  perfon.'* 

Comment.  What  rapidity  of  imagination,  fir! 
In  the  fpace  of  fome  days,  that  is  at  moH:  of  two  or 
three,  you  fee  a  man  dead,  and  the  worms  grown 
fat  on  his  entrails,  and  thefe  worms  eaten  by  fwal- 
lows. This  is  very  fudden,  but  this  is  not  all ;  you 
fee  again  thefe  fwallows  devoured  by  other  birds, 
thefe  again  by  hawks,  and  thefe  again  by  vultures  j 
all  this  in  fo  fliort  a  time!  Truly,  this  is  going  on  at 
a  great  rate,  the  ordinary  procefs  of  nature  is  more 
flow. 

However,  as  there  is  nothing  utterly  impolTible  in 
thefe  fuppofitions,  wc  fee  no  inconvenience  in  grant- 
ing them  to  vou. 


COMMENTARY.  485 

But,  fir,  is  it  abfolutely  neceflary,  in  order  that 
this  man  iliould  rife  again  and  be  the  fame  perfon, 
that  all  the  imperceptible  parts  of  his  body,  which 
had  been  exhaled  in  the  air,  fhould  come  each  into 
its  own  place,  and  that  all  the  animals,  fed  with  this 
fubftance,  fhould  reftore  to  it  exactly  what  belonged 
to  it  ?  Does  a  man  ceafe  to  be  the  fame  perfon  as  foon 
as  he  lofes  any  of  thofe  imperceptible  parts  which  he 
had  before  ?  We  think  that  one  might  lofe  feme  ve- 
ry perceptible  parts  of  the  body,  without  ceafmg  to 
be  the  fame  perfon.  Suppofe  an  officer  lofes  an  arm. 
era  leg  in  battle  by  a  cannon-ball  ;  and  Lt  this  leg 
or  arm  be.  devoured  by  ravenous  beads,  which  in 
their  turn  fhali  be  devoured  by  others,  does  this  offi- 
cer ceafe  to  be  the  fame  man  becaufe  he  wants  a  leg 
or  an  arm  ?  And  when  the  king  rewards  him  for  his 
bravery,  does  he  bellow  the  crofs  of  Saint  Lewis  on 
another  perfon  ? 

Let  us  fuppofe  (which  Gob  forbid,  as  we  fincerely 
love  you)  that  the  reading  of  fome  bad  piece  of  criti- 
cifm,  ours  for  infliance,  ihould  throw  you  into  a  fe- 
ver, and  that  in  confequence  of  this  you  (liould  lofe 
fome  ounces  of  blood  ;  would  you  on  this  account 
no  longer  be  Mr.  Voltaire  ?  And  fuppofe  your  blood 
was  call  into  fome  place  where  it  was  eaten  by  worms, 
then  thefe  worms  were  confumed  by  fwallows,  thefe 
again  by  other  birds,  and  thefe  again  by  hawks,  and 
thefe  again  by  vultures  ;  would  it  be  necelTary  in  or- 
der to  your  being  the  fame  perfon,  that  all  thefe  ani- 
mals fliould  refiore  to  you  precifely  whatever  be- 
longed to  you  ?  Are  you  fo  great  a  philofopher,  and 
yet  ignorant  of  this,  that  what  belongs  to  you  is  not 
elfentially  youvlelf  ? 

But  let  us  not  dwell  on  fuch  difmal  fuppofitions. 
You  perfpire,  we  fuppofe  ;  the  imperceptible  parts 
of  your  body  are  continually  exhaled  in  the  air  ;  by 
this  pcrlpiration  you  may  probably  lofe  this  day  a- 
bout  two  pounds  of  thefe  imperceptible  parts.  And 
w  len  you  get  up  to-morrow  morning,  Ihall  you  no 
loa.^^er  b^  Mr.  Voltaire  ? 

30. 


o* 


fc( 


4S6  A       S     H     O     R     T 

Therefore  this  triumphant  argument  againfl;  the 
poUibility  of  refurrcclions,  is  not  very  found  ;  and 
when  you  formed  it,  you  had  not  the  principles  of 
metaphyficks  on  the  identity  of  perfons,  prefent  in 
vour  mind. 

§  3.  The  underfiand'ing  of  beajls  proved  by  this  ex- 
frefjhn^  Their  blood  fhall  be  upon  them. 

Text.  "  It  is  faid  in  Leviticus,  that  if  a  woman 
"  lies  with  a  bead,  (he  fnall  be  killed  with  the  bcaft, 
and  their  blood  (hall  be  upon  them.  This  expref- 
lion,  their  blood jhall  be  upon  them^  fliews  evidently 
that  beafls  w^ere  then  fuppofed  to  have  fome  un- 
derftanding."     (Treatife  of  Toleration.)  'o 

Comment.  Some  people  will  be  apt  to  think  that 
there  is  one  w^ord  too  much  here,  the  word,  evidently. 
And  indeed,  is  it  not  proftituting  it,  to  apply  it  to 
fuch  an  argument  as  this  ?  What  a  diftance,  fir,  be- 
tween the  premifes  and  the  conclufion  which  you 
draw !  You  clear,  with  one  leap,  the  interval  that 
feparates  them  ;  but  all  your  readers  will  not  be  able 
to  perceive  that  connexion  which  you  fee  between 
them  ;  we  think  at  leaft  that  it  will  not  appear  evi- 
dent to  them.  This  word,  fir,  fhould  not  be  lavi(hed  j 
you  make  too  frequent  ufe  of  it. 

§  4.  An  extraordinary  ?nethod  of  proving  that  they 
ivroie  only  iiponjlone  in  the  time  of  Mofes. 

You  have  abfolutely  fettled  it,  fir,  that  in  the 
time  of  our  legiflator  they  wrote  only  on  ftone. 
The  falfehood  and  folly  of  this  opinion  do  not  Hop 
you  ;  you  are  fo  llrongly  attached  to  it  that  nothing 
can  undeceive  you  ;  you  even  think  that  you  can 
make  your  readers  beheve  it,  and  in  order  to  prove 
it,  you  fay, 

Text.  "  It  is  fo  true  that  they  wrote  only  on 
'•  Hone  then,  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Jolhua 
"  fays,  that  Deuteronomy  w'as  written  on  an  altar 
"  of  unhewed  Hones  covered  with  mortar.  Pro- 
bably ]olhua  did  not  intend  that  this  book  fl:iould 
iaii  long."     (Caloyer.) 


COMMENTARY.  487 

Comment.  Here  is  falfc  reafoning,  and  a  filly 
joke,  fir. 

Falfe  reafoning^  for  do  you  not  perceive  that  it  a- 
moimts  to  this  ?  It  is  faying  this  plainly,  Jofhua 
wrote  upon  mortar,  therefore  at  that  time  they  wrote 
only  on  ftone  ;  or  Jofhua  wrote  Deuteronomy  on 
ftone,  therefore  he  did  not  intend  that  this  book 
fhould  lafl  long. 

Silly  joke  ;  for  if  there  is  any  humour  in  it,  it  is 
only  on  fuppofition  that  Jofliua  did  write  on  mortar, 
and  that  this  mortar  was  of  the  fame  nature  as  ours. 
But  if  this  mortar  was  a  kind  of  ftucco,  capable  of 
refifting  the  injuries  of  weather,  efpecially  in  fuch 
a  climate  as  that  of  Paleftine,  which  many  learned 
men  have  thought  ;  or  if  this  mortar  ferved  onl  y 
to  cement  the  Hones  on  which  Jofliua  wrote,  as  o- 
thers  fuppofe  with  good  reafon,  what  becomes  of 
your  joke  ! 

Certainly,  fir,  when  a  man  reafons  and  jefls  in 
this  manner,  he  mud  have  a  great  fund  of  wit  to 
procure  himfelf  readers. 

§.    I.    Of  Ninus,  the  founder  of  Ninive. 

You  have  another  very  extraordinary  way  of  rea- 
foning, fir  ;  you  conclude  from  the  termination  of  a 
man's  name  whether  he  ever  exifted  or  not. 

Text.  "  There  never  was  a  Ninus,  founder  of 
*'  Ninvah,  called  by  us  Ninive,  no  more  than  a  Be- 
*'  lus  founder  of  Babylon  ;  no  Afiatick  prince  ever 
"  had  a  name  in  iis.^*     (Philof.  Dictionary. ) 

Comment.  Ninvah  called  by  us  Ninive,  is  cer- 
tainly a  noble  flroke  of  erudition.  But  what  fliall 
we  think  of  this  argument ;  No  Afiatick  prince  ever 
had  a  name  in  us,  therefore  there  was  no  fuch 
-perfon  as  Nnus,  the  f  under  of  Ninive  !  Is  not  this 
juft  as  if  a  man  affirmed  that  there  never  was  fuch  a 
peffon  as  Pompey,  becaufe  no  Roman  general  ever 
had  a  name  ending  in  y  ?  This  might  be  anfwersd 
by  faying,  that  there  never  was  a  Pompey  at  Rome, 
but  that  there  lived  at  Rome  a  perfon  called  Pom  pel - 
u?,    whom    the   Englifii  call  Pompey.     Does     thi.-: 


«c 

t, 


488  A      S    H    O    R    T 

change  of  termination  prevent  the  exiftence  of  that 
Roman  ? 

This  kind  of  argument  is  fo  pleafing  to  you,  you 
find  it  fo  convincing,  that  you  ufe  it  with  the  greateft 
confidence  in  various  parts  of  your  works. 

By  this  you  endeavour  to  invaHdate  what  Jofephus 
the  hiftorian  relates,  that  Alexander  was  received  by 
the  Jev/ifh  high-pried. 

Text.     "  Alexander  was  received  by  the  high- 
pried  Jaddus,  that  is  fuppcfing  there  ever  exifted 
'  a  Jewi'fh  prieft  called  Jaddus.''     (Philof.  of  Hift.) 
Comment.     This  jewifh  prieft  was   not    called 
Jaddus,  but  Joad  or  Joiada.     But  does  it  follow  that 
the  high-priefl  did  not  receive  Alexander   and  that 
Jofephus  is  a  Ivar,   becaufe  this  high  prieft  Joad  or 
Joiada  is  called  Jaddus  in  French  and  jaddous  in 
Greek  ?  This  is  an  uncommon  way  of  reafoning. 
§    6.     Tower  of  Babel. 
Text.      "  Almoft   all  the  commentators    think 
'  themfelves   obliged  to   fuppofe,    that  the  famous 
tower  built  at   Babylon,  to  obferve  the  heavenly 
bodies,  was  a  fragment  of  the  tower  of  Babel, 
"  which  men  w^anted  to  raife  up  to   heaven.     It  is 
"  not  well  known  what  commentators  mean  by  hea- 
*'  ven  ;  is  it  the  moon  ?  Is  it  the  planet  Venus  •*  All 
''  this  is  very  far  from  us.*' 

Comment.  Perhap-,  fir,  you  may  fay,  that  this 
is  rather  a  joke  than  a  piece  of  reafoning.  But 
what  a  wretched  joke,  and  how  ill  placed  !  Do  you 
'  not  know  that  to  raife  up  to  heaven,  means  only  to 
raife  very  high  ?  It  is  a  common  expreffion  in  all 
languages,  even  in  yours.  We  fay  every  day,  to 
raife  a  building  up  to  heaven,  mountains  which  raife 
their  heads    (i)  to   heaven.     If    any    little    critick 

(i)  Thefc  words  rcral  to  our  minds  the  following  verfcs  of  a  grtat  pect, 

y'ai  1)11  rjmjiie  ac'orifur  ia  tit  re ; 
fareil  au  cinlre,  il  forUit  tarn  la  cicux 

Sou  front  audacieux  ; 
Jlfembloit  a  foil  gre  gouverner  letonnerc 
Feahii  auxpitJsfes  tnnim'ts  •vu'incus 
"Jt »  j'ifuh  qui  foj^er,  ills' eteii  deja  flus. 


COMMENTARY,  489 

fliould  alk,  what  do  you  mean  by  heaven  ?  By  raif- 
ing  up  to  heaven  ?  Is  it  the  planet  Venus  ?  All  this 
is  very  far  from  us  ;  this  would  make  us  laugh  cer- 
tainly, but  at  whom,  and  for  what  ? 

§   7.    Of  the  word  BabeL 
Your  reafoning  is  as  bad  with  regard  to  the  word 
Babel.     This  word  puzzles  you. 

Text.  "  I  know  not  why  it  is  faid  in  Genefis, 
"  that  Babel  fignifies  confufion."  (Philof.  Didion.) 
Comment.  We  are  amazed  at  your  doubt,  fir. 
Since  you  underftand  the  Caldean  language,  as  ap- 
pears by  all  your  works,  you  might  guefs  that  Ba- 
bel, by  an  abbreviation,  of  which  there  are  many  ex- 
amples in  all  languages,  comes  from  Baloel,  a  Cal- 
dean word,  which  they  fay  fignifies  confufion. 

To  this  you  prefer  another  derivation ;  you  de- 
rive Babel  from  the  words  Ba  and  Bel.  You  fay. 

Text.  "  Ba  fignifies  father  in  the  oriental 
"  tongues,  and  5<?/ fignifies  God,  jB^Zif/ fignifies  the 
fA.  .city  of  God." 

Comment.  Ba  fignifies  father,  56"/ fignifies  God, 
therefore  Babel  fignifies  the  city  of  God ;  this,  fir,  is 
the  general  firain  of  your  logick.  We  think  your 
proper  conclufion  (hould  have  been,  therefore  Ba- 
bel fignifies  father  God  or  father  Bel.  Thus  your 
derivation  is  neither  very  clear  nor  very  agreeable  to 
reafon. 

§  8.  Of  the  Pythonijfa,  and  of  the  word  Python, 
Text.  "  The  Pythoniifa  of  Endor,  which  raifed 
*'  the  ihade  of  Samuel,  is  well  known.  Certainly 
"  however  it  is  very  extraordinary  that  this  Greek 
"  word  Python  was  known  by  the  Jews  in  the  time 
*'  of  Saul ;  many  learned  men  have  concluded  from 
"  hence,  that  this  account  was  not  written  'till  af- 
"  ter  the  Jews  had  fome  acquaintance  with  the 
«  Greeks,  after  the  time  of  Alexander."  (Philof. 
of  Hiftory. 

Thefe  are  certainly  good  verfes,  altho'  they  are  Imitations  of  the  Hebrew. 
Dees  Mr  Voltaire  deem  thefe  words  unintelligible,  II  portoit  dans  In  cieux. 
fan  front  audacieuK  ?  And  would  he  venture  to  aik  Racine  the  qiitftion  about 
the  moon  and  the  planet  Vcnui, 


490  A       S     H       O     R     T 

Comment,  (i)  The  word  Pythonv/h'ich  is  Greek, 
and  Greek  of  late  date,  which,  fo  far  from  being- 
found  in  the  Hebrew  text,  cannot  be  found  in  the 
Greek  feptuagint  verfion,  which  in  fliort  cannot  be 
leen  any  where  but  in  the  Vulgate  •,.  this  word  was 
knoivn  by  the  Jews  iri  the  time  of  Saul !  Surely  no- 
thing can  be  more  wonderful!  But  who  told  you, 
fir,  that  they  knew  this  word,  and  what  could  put 
fuch  an  extraordinary  thing  in  your  head  ? 

Many  learned  men  have  concluded  from  hence,  Iffc, 
What,  becaufe  the  word  Python,  of  Greek  origin,  is 
found  in  the  Vulgate,  therefore  thefe  learned  men 
conclude,  that  the  Hebrew  text,  in  which  it  is  not  to 
be  found,  was  not  written  until  after  the  Jews  had 
fome  acquaintance  with  the  Greeks,  after  Alexan- 
der's time.  Thefe  are  excellent  logicians,  fir,  ad- 
mirable reafoners  !  You  repeat  the  fame  argument 
in  the  Treatife  on  Toleration. 

Text.  "  It  may  be  obferved  again,  that  it  is  ve- 
'•  ry  extraordinary  that  the  word  Python  is  found 
"  in  Deuteronomy,  a  long  time  before  this  Greek 
"  word  could  be  known  by  the  Hebrews  ;  and  a- 
"  crreeably  to  this  it  is  not  in  the  Hebrew.'* 

Comment.  What  do  you  mean  here,  fir? 
What !  It  is  extraordinary,  and  very  extraordinary, 
that  a  Greek  word,  which  could  not  be  known  by  the 
Hebrews,  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew !  It  is  extra- 
ordinary, that  this  Greek  word,  which  became  Latin 
by  common  ufe,  is  found  in  a  Latin  tranflation  !  No, 

(l)  t/je  ivarJ  Pylhcn  •which  h  Grccl,  The  Hebrew  word  which  anfwers  to 
python  is  Ob,  the  Greek  word  of  the  Septuigiiit,  and  of  the  father*  of  the 
Greek  church,  is  Eitgjjlrlmuthos.     See  Supplement. 

The  Engafirtmuthoi  or  ventriloqui  were  a  kind  of  wizards,  who  pretended 
to  foretel  future  events  in  a  low  voice  which  feemed  to  proceed  from  their 
beliits  or  from  under  tlie  earih  ;  many  psople  have  denied  the  poliibility  of 
thus  fpeaking,  but  fome  of  the  learned  among  the  moderns,  Eugubinus,  Coc- 
]ius  Rhodoginus,  Oltaller,  &c.  atteft  that  they  have  feen  men  and  women 
tifraPrimuthoi,  and  that  tliefe  peribns  could  anfwer  fuch  queftionsas  wer«;  put 
to  them  cxaiSily  with  their  bttUics  ;  there  have  been  recent  inftanres  of  this 
iv-o  ;  the  author  of  the  Didionaire  dc  Trevoux,  (article  vtiitriloqne,)  lay* 
that  he  knew  an  ofljccr  who  fpoke  with  his  belly,  and  who  for  fport  ufcd  t» 
aiarni  his  comrades  by  this  pradicc.     Edit. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  491 

fir,  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  all  this,  but  the 
extraordinary  manner  of  reafoning. 

If  we,  poor  ignorant  people,  had  reafoned  thus^ 
how  you  would  have  handled  us  !  Happily  for  us 
our  logick  goes  ftep  by  ftep ;  it  has  not  that  rapid 
and  tranfcendant  progrefs  which  yours  has. 

You  fay  fomcwhere,    that  poor    RoulTeau  never 
made  a   good   fyllogifm.     It  is  certain  that  (1)  the 
citizen  of  that   little  commonzvealth    which  borders  on 
your  domain,  has    not  always   reafoned  juftly.     But 
Confider,   fir,  whether  you  reafon  better  than  him, 
and  whether  you  could  venture  to  meet  him  fyllo- 
giftically.     You   fnew  contempt  for  his  logick,  and 
indeed  he  cannot  fet  much  value  upon  yours. 
■  -Behold   thefe   great  teachers  of  men  !  What  an 
excellent  fcholar  will   he  become,    who   takes  thefe 
new  doctors  for   preceptors,  who  are  charging  one 
another  with  never  having  known  the  principles  ot 
true  reafoning  I 

EIGHTEENTH      EXTRACT. 

Of  certain  fclences  and  arts.     Sequel.     Of  the  art  of 
cajiing  metals.     Exaviination   of  an  article  taken  cut 
of  les  Queflions  fur  I'Encyclopedie. 
It  feems  then,  fir,  that  you  have  done  us  the  ho- 
nour of  a  reading  ;   and  whilft  you  obferve   a   deep 
and  fullen    filence  v/ith   regard  to  fo   many   other 
works  of  the  learned,  in  which  Chriftians  of  all  feds, 
Quakers,  Protefiants,   Roman  Catholicks,  &c.  have, 
perhaps  in  a  fi:ronger  manner   than  we   have  done, 
attacked  your  prejudices  and  your  errors,  you  vouch- 
fafe  to  anfwer  us. 

*    It  is  not  becaufe  our  letters  have  appeared  to  you 

more  ftrongly  and   folidly  written,   or  that  we  trest 

in  them  of  more  important  fubjecls,  or  that  we  pre- 

-fent  them  in  a  more  engaging  manner  ;  no,  fir,  you 

(1)  CiilzenoJ  that  Utile  eommonivealtby  ^r,  By  this  periphrafis,  Mr,  ^'■oUa:^e 
denotes  the  commonwealth  cf  Geneva. 


492  A       S    H    O    R    T 

have  not  fo  favourable  an  idea  of  our  feeble  effays  ; 
and  we  are  better  acquainted  with  the  value  of 
them. 

But  a  parcel  of  poor  wretched  Jews,  ftrangers, 
v/ho  fcarcely  underftand  your  language,  have  ap- 
peared lefs  dangerous  adverlaries.  Such  is  the  na- 
ture of  philofophical  generofity  !  It  fpares  the  for- 
midable enemy,  and  attacks  the  weak,  one  who  is 
likely  to  yield  an  eafy  triumph. 

We  feel  our  inferiority,  fir.  A  ftrong  party, 
powerful  protedors,  a  brilliant  and  merited  reputa* 
tion,  extent  of  knowledge,  graces  of  ftyle,  &c.  all 
thefe  advantages  are  on  your  fide,  but  truth  is  on. 
cur's ;  in  her  company,  there  is  always  ftrength, 
let  the  adverfary  be  every  fo  powerful.  With  the 
confidence  therefore  which  truth  infpires,  we  fliall 
now  attempt  to  examine  the  anfwer  you  have  ho- 
noured us  with. 

§    I.     Obfervations    on  the   title  of  Mr.  Voltaire'' s 
anfwer  to  two  of  our  letters. 

No  doubt  you  intended  that  your  anfwer  fhould 
abound  in  wit  ;    for  the  very  title  of  it    is  witty. 

Text.  "  Cdjiing.  The  art  of  calling  confider- 
*'  able  figures  of  gold  or  brafs  ;  anfwer  to  a  man 
"  who  is  of  another  calling.'*  (Queftions  fur  1  En- 
cyclopedic,  Art.   Fonte.) 

Comment.  This  title,  fir,  abounds  in  wit,  we 
allow  it ;  but  would  it  not  have  been  more  ingenious 
and  more  true  too,  to  have  faid,  the  art  of  cafiing 
conftderable  figures  of  about  three  feet.  Anfwer  to  a 
man  who  is  of  anoth€r  callijig  ;  by  a  man  who  is  of 
that  calling. 

Thefe  expreffions,  conftderable  figures  of  about  three 
feet,  would  make  a  lovely  contrafl,  and  would  fur- 
prize  the  reader  agreeably.  And  nothing  can  be  truer 
than  thefe  other  words,  by  a  man  who  is  of  that  call- 
ing ;  for  certainly  you  are  of  it,  fir,  we  fee  it  at 
once. 

§    2,      A    little  flratagem   of  the  learned  foiai" 
dcr. 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y. 


49; 


But  fmce  you  are  of  that  calling,  fir,  fince  yoii 
are  fuch  a  perfect  malter  of  the  art  of  cafling  me- 
tals, why  have  you  recourfe  to  thefe  little  ftrata- 
gems  which  unfair  difputants  deal  in  ?  You  begin 
by  changing  the  ftate  of  the  queftion. 

Text.  -^  The  queftion  is  whether,  without 
"  the  help  of  a  miracle,  a  figure  of  gold  could  be 
"  caft  in  one  night." 

Comment.  This  is  not  at  all  the  queftion, 
fir  ;  neither  Exodus  relates  it,  nor  have  we  ever 
afterted  that  Aaron  caft  the  irolden-calf  in  one  nio-ht: 
confequently  this-is  a  falfe  expofition,  and  a  little  ftra- 
tagem. 

In  that  part  of  your  works  which  we  were  confut- 
ing, you  fpoke  of  one  day,  and  in  youranfwer,  you 
fpeak  of  one  night.  What  advantage  have  you,  fir, 
in  changing  the  day  into  night  ?  Your  aifertion  will 
not  by  this  become  more  true  J  we  have  denied  it, 
and  we  deny  it  again. 

Yes,  fir,  (you  oblige  us  to  affume  a  ftyle  that 
may  be  difpleafmg  to  you.  )  Yes,  it  is  falfe,  verv 
falfe,  abfolutely  falfe,  that  Exodus  or  any  other  book 
of  fcripture  fays,  that  Aaron  fpsnt  but  one  day  or 
one  night  in  cafting  the  golden  calf,  nor  have  we  in 
any  place  afterted  it. 

You  afliimed    this   point   without    giving  proofs  ; 
you  anfwer  us  without  producing  any  ;   you  can  ne- 
ver produce  any  ;  we  would    defy  you  to  do  it,   if  it 
was  decent  to  defy  a  man  whom  we  refpe£l. 
§    3.     Another  little Jiratagnn. 

You  are  not  fiitisfied  with  chanGfino;  the  ftate  of 
the  queftion  ;  you  bring  on  another  little  ftratagem. 
You  make  us  fay  juft  the  contrary  of  what  we  have 
faid. 

Text.  '•  It  has  been  aft'erted,  that  nothing  is 
*•'  eafier  than  to  caft  a  ftatue  in  three  days,  which 
"  might  eafily  be  feenby  two  or  three  millions  of 
fouls.'" 

Comment.  You  mean  probably,  fir,  by  two 
or   three  millions  at    once,    for  the   fmalleft    ftjtue 

^.  R 


494  A       S     H     O     R     T 

might  be  feen  by  two    or    three  millions  fuccej/ive- 

But  where  have  you  found  that  our  letter  fpeaks, 
of  a  ftatue  that  might  be  eafily  feen  by  two  or  three 
millions  of  foiils  at  once  ?  Produce  the  place,  fir, 
or  confefs  that  you  knowingly  charge  us  with  an  ab- 
furdity  of  which  we  have  not  been  guilty. 

A  ftatue,  which  might  eafily  be  feen  by  two  or  three 
millions  of  fouls  at  a  time,  muil  neceffarily  be  a 
large  flatue.  Now,  fo  far  from  ever  having  faid  or 
thought  that  the  golden. calf  was  a  large  ftatue,  we 
told  you  that  one  of  your  miftakes  was  your  re- 
prefenting  it  to  yourfelf  like  the  groupe  in  the  Place 
des  Vidoires,  or  the  Laocsan  at  Marly.  We  obferved 
to  you,  that  it  was  made  to  be  carried  at  the  head 
ot  the  army,  and  that  a  portable  ftatue  cannot  be  a 
large  one.  Therefore  you  make  us  fay  juft  the  con- 
trary of  what  we  have  faid.  A  noble  and  liberal 
way  of  defence  indeed  !  This  is  a  new  and  convinc- 
ing proof  of  that  lore  of  truth  which  guides  your 
pen  ! 

§    4.     Falfe  things  laid  to  our  charge  by  him. 

You  go  on  with  the  fame  candour,   and  fay, 

Text.  "  They  have  wrote  againft  us  and 
"  againd  all  ancient  and  modern  fculptors,  for  want 
*'  of  having  confulted  the  v/ork-houfes.  The  autho^ 
*'  rity  of  commentators  is  put  in  oppofition  to  that 
"  of  artids.  Arts  are  not  to  be  treated  of  in  this 
way. 

Comment.  They  have  wrote  againft  us.  Sec. 
Wrote  againft  you  and  againft;  all  the  fculptors,  fir  ! 
God  forbid  !  we  never  had  fuch  a  thought.  We 
have  two  much  refpect  for  you,  and  efteem  for 
them. 

We  allow  that  thro'  zeal  for  your  character,  and 
defire  of  contributing,  if  pofiible,  to  the  perfection 
of  your  works,  we  took  the  liberty  of  pointing  out 
fome  miftakes  to  you  into  which  you  had  fallen. 
But,  if  we  are  not  deceived,  this  is  not  writing  againft 
you.     Attach  yourfelf  as  clofely  as  you  pleafe  to  your 


COM  ME  N  T  A  R  Y.  495 

prejudices,  falfe  aflertions,  and  errors,  we  (hall  al- 
ways think  it  our  duty  to  diilinguifii  you  from 
them. 

We  fhall  be  cautions  efpecially,  of  afcribing  the 
opinions  of  fuchan  artid  as  you  are, to  all  the  ancient 
and  modern  fculptors.  We  feel  how  unjull  this 
proceeding  -would  be,  and  how  unfair  with  regard 
to  you. 

For  want  of  having  confulted  the  work-houfcs^  1\.q.. 
We  havfi  confulted  them,  fir,  be  afiured  of  it.  If 
it  was  neceffary,  we  could  name  feveral  of  them  to 
you  ;  and  we  have  not  put  the  authority  of  com- 
mentators in  oppofition  to  them.  Thus  the  arts  are 
treated.  Is  this  the  way  you  have  always  treated 
them  ? 

§  5.  Of  certain  noble  fccrets  invented  by  the  great 
artifi. 

You  proceed  in  your  joking  way,  and  you  fay  com- 
ically enough, 

Text.  "  The  bufmefs  of  a  founder  is  the:  only 
"  thing  in  queflion  ;  it  is  not  needful  to  confult 
"  Artapanus,  Berofus,  Manetho,  to  know  how  a 
"  ftatue  fhould  be  made,  fuch  as  may  be  feen  by  the 
''   whole  army  of  Xerxes  in  march." 

Comment.  You  do  u  too  much  honour,  fir. 
To  you  it  belongs  to  confult  Artapanus,  Berofus, 
Manetho.  Thefe  names  we  read  in  many  parts  of 
your  works  ;  they  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  part  of 
ours.  It  would  indeed  be  a  noble  thing  to  fee  fuch 
ignorant  people  as  we  are,  quoting  Artapanus  and 
Manetho  with  regard  to  (latues  ;  we  are  too  well 
acquainted  with  our  own  powers  and  with  theirs 
too. 

When  we  fliall  u'lfli  to  be  informed  of  a  thing, 
which  is  indeed  very  well  worth  knowing,  how  to 
make  a  ftatue  which  may  be  feen  by  an  army  of  a 
million  of  men  in  march,  fuch  as  that  of  Xerxes,  we 
will  not  confult  the  ancient  authors  of  Egypt  and 
Caldea.  We  will  apply  to  a  writer  of  later  date, 
and  much  better  inftruded  in  the  bufmefs  of  a  foun- 


495  A      S    H     O     R     T 

der  ;  to  you,  fir,  who  are  of  that  calling,  and  verfed 
in  all  its  fecrets. 

No,  fir,  none  but  fuch  a  founder  as  you,  and  of 
fo  lively,  fruitful,  and  political  an  imagination  as 
yours,  could  be  capable  of  convincing  and  execut- 
ing a  ftatue  which  could  be  feen  by  the  army  of  Xerx- 
es in  march. 

Truly,  fir,  this  is  not  an  cafy  job.  An  army  of 
a  million,  or  even  of  half  a  million  of  men  in  march, 
muft  cover  a  great  piece  of  ground  ;  and  you  can- 
TiOt  fuppofe  that  every  foldier  had  a  telefcope  in  his 
pocket.  Be  alfured,  fir,  that  without  the  help  of 
telefcopes,  it  would  have  been  hard  for  fuch  an  army 
in  march  to  fee  a  ftatue  even  of  natural  fize.  Certain- 
ly, fomething  larger  would  be  necelfary  in  this  cafe  ; 
for  inflance,  the  ColoiTus  of  Arona,  mounted  perhaps 
on  the  Trajan  pillar.  Now,  (i)  the  Cololfus  of 
Arona,  incorporated  with  the  Trajan  pillar,  and 
caft  along  with  it,  efpecially  in  a  fmgle  caft,  would 
make  indeed  a  pretty  confiderable  molton  ftatue. 

You  certainly  know,  fir,  the  proper  procefs  for 
executing  fuch  a  piece  of  work  ;  and  as  your  talents 
for  mechanicks  are  as  great  as  for  cafting  metals, 
you  alfo  certainly  know  what  the  Vaucanfons,  the 
Laurents,  the  Lauriots  do  not  know,  by  what  me- 
chanical invention  fr.ch  a  ftatue  might  be  borne  at 
the  head  of  an  army.  Truly,  fir,  you  are  poffefied 
of  wonderful  fecrets  !  We  hope  you  will  not  much 
longer  rob  the  world  of  them. 

§  6.  Reafons  ivbkb  the  illujlrious  writer  alkdgcs, 
to  JJoew  thai  it  is  ijupojjlble,  ivitbcut  the  help  of  a  mira- 
cle^ in  Icjs  than  fix  months  t9  caft  a  golden  calf  cf  three 
feci^  coarfcly  executed. 

This  is  a  poor  joke  !  you  will  fay.  Be  it  io. 
Let  us  fay  no  more  of  your  army  of  Xerxes  in 
march,  and  of  our  Coloflus  of  Arona.     Tet  us  fpeak 


(i)  Tie  CrJ^ffus  of  Artra.  It  was  a  prcat  Co!oJaI  ftatuc  creflcd  in  ho- 
nour of  Charles  Eof;cn:cus,  .'irchbilboj>  of  Mila:;,  in  his  native  country 
Aroua.     Ckr'iU 


(C 


ii 


COMMENTARY.  497" 

only  of  a  ftatue  of  three  feet  ;  How  much  time  is 
requifite,  to  cafl:  a  golden  calf  of  three  feet,  coarfsly 
executed  ? 

Text.  "  Six  months  at  leaft.'* 
Comment.  Six  months,  fir  !  this  is  a  great  deal. 
If  you  had  fufficient  proof  of  this,  fir,  you  would 
oblige  us  to  give  up  the  account  in  the  Pentateuch, 
or  to  have  recourfe  to  a  miracle.  Let  us  now  fee 
what  are  your  proofs. 

The  firft  is  a  defcription,  in  twenty  articles,  of  the 
procefles  which  are  now  ufed,  for  calling  large  cop- 
per-figures. 

Text.  "  This  is  the  manner  of  cafling  a  flatue 
of  only  three  feet,  iit.  They  make  a  model  in 
fuller's  earth.  sdly.  This  model  is  covered 
with  a  mould  in  plaifter,  by  fitting  the  pieces 
of  plaifter  one  to  another,  &c.  &c.  Sic." 
Comment.  We  allow  that  this  defcription  (which 
fome  artift  probably  gave  you)  is,  excepting  fome 
omiffions,  pretty  exadl,  and  that  it  may  be  ealily 
underftood  by  perfons  of  that  calling.  As  to  thofe 
who  are  not  of  this  calling,  they  had  better  add  to 
it  the  words  Fonie,  in  the  Encyclopedic,  and  the  Die- 
iionaire  des  beaux  Arts  by  Lacombe.  By  the  help  of 
thefe  two  comments,  they  mayunderiland  fome  parts, 
which  are  not  explained  with  fufficient  clearnefs  for 
them,  beginning  at  the  fecond  and  fifth  articles, 
5cc.  &c. 

We  allow  again,  that  this  method  is  generally 
followed  now  in  calling  large  bronze  flatues  ;  fuch 
for  inflance,  as  thofe  in  your  publick  places  ;  and 
even  fometimcs  when  they  are  carting  bronze  lla- 
tues  of  three  feet,  of  extraordinary  elegance,  in- 
tended as  ornaments  for  the  cabinets  of  rich  cu- 
riofos. 

But  is  this  an  ancient  method  ?  Does  it  go  back 
as  far  as  the  time  of  Mofes  ?  Are  all  thefe  proceiies 
indifpenfabiy  necefiary  r  Can  none  of  them  le 
left  out  ?  Was  it  never  pciTible,  and  is  it  not  pof- 
fiblc  now  to  fubftituta  others  in  their  (lead,  more 


498  A      S    H    O    R    T 

quick  and  expeditious  ?  In  fhort,  were  there  not  for- 
merly, and  are  there  not  at  this  day,  other  methods 
of  calling  a  golden  ftatue  of  three  feet  in  lefs  than  fix 
months  ?  Thefe  things,  fir,  you  do  not  prove,  and 
\ou  ought  to  prove  them ;  without  this  your  learn- 
ed defcription  is  abfolutely  thrown  away.  We  grant 
you,  that  there  are  procefles  which  may  require 
fix  months  ;  but  we  will  deny  your  affertion  if  you 
fay  that  there  are  none  which  will  require  lefs  time. 

To  this  firfl:  proof,  not  very  convincing  indeed, 
you  add  another  ;  which  is  the  authority  of  one  of 
your  moft  famous  artifts. 

Text.  ''  I  aiked  Mr.  Pigal,  how  much  time 
"  he  would  require  to  make  an  horfe,  only  three 
"  feet  high,  in  bronze.  He  anfwered  me  in  writing, 
"  I  require  fix  months  at  leaft.  I  have  this  decla- 
"  racion  dated  3d  June,   1770. 

Comment.  We  make  no  doubt  of  this,  fir,  as 
YOU  affirm  it  ;  but  what  can  you  conclude  from  it  ? 
Mr.  Pigal,  a  famous  artift,  opulent  and  in  great 
bufmefs,  requires  fix  months  at  le  ft,  to  call  in 
bronze  an  horfe  three  feet  high  ;  therefore  an  in- 
ferior artiH  would  require  the  lame  time  !  Mr.  Pigal, 
jealous  of  his  reputation,  and  who  willies  to  let 
nothing  go  out  of  his  hands  but  mafter-pieces,  would 
life  curious  and  extraordinary  procefles  in  this  cafe  ; 
therefore  there  are  not  any  methods  more  fimple  ! 
Mr.  Pi'^^al  requires  fix  months  at  leafl  to  call  in 
bronze  a  figure  of  three  feet,  performed  with  care, 
elegance,  and  that  fine  finifhing  which  he  gives  to 
all  his  works  ;  therefore  the  fame  time  is  requifite  to 
make  a  golden  figure,  coarfely  executed  ! 

We  think,  fir,  that,  without  pretending  to  more 
knowledge  than  Mr.  Pigal  in  the  art  of  calling  me- 
tals, we  may  pronounce  thefe  confequences  ill  de- 
duced ;  and   that  the  denying  them  is  not  denying 

truth. 

§   7.     Whether^  and  hozu  a  golden  calf  of  three  feet 
mi'^ht  be  caji,  not  only  in.  lefs  than  Jlx  months^  but  in  a 
fortnight  or  even  in  a.tveek. 


COMMENTARY.  499 

Before  we  proceed  farther,  permit  us  to  obferve, 
that  in  order  to  juftify  the  account  in  Exodus,  no 
more  is  ftrictly  required  than  the  poflibility  of  cart- 
ing a  golden  calf  in  three  weeks  or  a  month.  For 
as  the  fcripture  has  not  determined  either  the  time 
which  Aaron  took  to  make  the  golden  calf,  or  the 
moment  in  which  the  Ifraelites  began  to  murmur  at 
the  abfence  of  their  leader  ;  we  may  fuppofe  that 
they  began  to  be  weary  of  his  abfence  at  the  end  of 
ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  days,  having  been  accuftom- 
ed  to  fee  him  go  up  and  come  down  from  the  moun^ 
tain  every  day.  Thus  Aaron  may  have  had  three 
weeks  or  even  a  month,  to  make  the  golden  calf. 
Now,  there  cannot  be  the  leaft  doubt,  altho'  you 
feem  to  entertain  one,  of  the  poffibility  of  making  a 
golden  calf  even  of  three  feet,  in  three  weeks  or  a 
month. 

But  could  a  golden  calf  of  three  feet  be  cafl  in 
a  fortnight,  or  even  in  a  week  ?  We  have  affirmed 
that  it  can  be  done,  and  we  affirm  it  again.  You 
fay. 

Text.  ''  If  they  had  applied  to  Mr.  Pigal  or 
"  Mr.  le  Moine,  they  would  have  changed  their 
"  opinion." 

Comment.  We  own,  fir,  we  did  not  apply  to 
Pigal  or  le  Moine.  It  is  not  needful  to  apply  to  the 
■^Phidiafes  of  France,  to  get  a  ftatue  made  of  three 
feet  corlely  executed. 

But,  even  if  we  had  confulted  them,  we  fhould 
not,  in  all  probability,  have  changed  our  opinion. 
If  wc  had  mentioned  a  golden  llatue,  and  told  them 
that  we  wiffied  for  difpatch  in  the  execution,  rather 
than  high  finifhing  in  the  work,  thefe  great  iiien 
would  have  been  (i)kind  enough  to  point  out  to  us 

'(i)  Kind  tnougb.  This  klndnef*  we  have  experienced.  Since  the  anfw«r 
with  which  Mr  Voltaire  has  honoured  us,  we  have  had  an  opportunitj' 
of  confuiting  Mr.  Guyard,  tiiat  excellent  difciple  of  the  immortal  BoHchar- 
don,  a  man  born  to  replace  his  mafter.  This  great  artill  recommended  us 
to  one  of  his  friends,  a  goldftnith,  who  required  but  eight  days  for  thii 
work.     Aut, 


* 


500  A       S     H     O     R     T 

inferior  artlfts,  who  follow   an  eafier  method,  and 
life  more  expeditious  procciTes. 

■Such  artifts  there  are,  fir  ;  and  there  is  at  this 
time,  a  much  more  expeditious  method  of  cafting 
metals,  than  that  of  which  you  give  us  fo  long  a 
defcription.  Probably  you  were  not  ignorant  of  it, 
fir,  altho'  you  would  feeni  fo  ;  for  you  add  with  an 
air  of. triumph, 

Text.  "  They  have  confulted  none  but  foun- 
"  ders  of  pewter  plates,  or  of  other  little  works,  that 
*'  are  cad  in  fand.'* 

Comment.  At  laft:,  fir,  the  word  efcapes  you  ! 
They  cajl  in  fand^  yes,  fir,  they  cafl  in  fand,  and 
not  only  peivicr  plates  and  other  little  ivorks,  but  alfo 
chandeliers,  vales,  figures  of  copper,  gold  and  fil- 
ver,  of  one,  two,  three  feet  high,  and  even  fome- 
times  higher,  /^pply,  fir,  not  io  founders  of  pewter 
plates,  but  to  founders  in  copper,  to  fuch  goldfmiths 
as  work  for  churches,  and  be  afliired  that,  when- 
ever you  fhall  require  it,  they  will  caft  you  in  fand 
an  horfe  of  copper,  or  a  calf  three  feet  high  and  • 
more,  in  lefs  than  fix  months,  and  even  in  lefs  than 
three  weeks,  without  a  miracle. 

Thefe  are  the  (hops  and  the  artills  which  we  have 
confulted,  and  v/hich  you  ought  to  have  confulted 
yourlelf,  as  you  were  looking  out  for  the  mod  ex- 
peditious procefs  for  calling  a  portable  ftatue  ;  there 
you  might  have  been  fatisfied  bv  ocular  demonftra- 
tion,  juft  as  we  were,  that  the  method  of  cafting 
figures  of  three  feet,  which  you  have  difcribed  in 
twenty  articles,  is  not  the  only  one  in  ufe,  even  in 
your  ov/n  time ;  that  a  more  fimple  operation  may 
be  fubftituted  in  its  place  ;  in  fhort,  that  it  is  very 
polTiblc,  without  a  miracle,  to  caft  a  ftatue  of  three 
feet,  not  only  in  lefs  than  fix  months,  but  even  in 
lefs  than  a  fortnight. 

Perhaps  you  may  aik  us,  where  we  found  the  ar- 
,tifts,  v\-ho  offered  to  make  us  a  ftatue  of  gold  or  cop- 
per, in  a  fori  night  or  even  in  a  week.     Where,  fir  ? 
At   Rotter daml^  Bruffels,  Antwerp  j  at  Paris,  Rue 


COMMENTARY.  501 

Guenn-BoifTean,  Rue  des  Arcis,  Pont-au  Change, 
Quai  des  Orfevres,  &c.  But  as  we  told  you  before, 
we  promifed  them  the  materials,  workmen,  if  they 
were  wanted,  and  even  a  model,  that  is,  to  thofe 
who  required  but  (i )  three  days  for  the  work.  \¥e 
leave  them  at  Hberty  to  make  it  of  one  or  (2)  ot  feve- 
ral  calls  ;  and  we  told  them  over  and  over,  that  we 
did  not  want  a  (latue  highly  linifhed,  retouched, 
burnifhed,  &;c.  &c.  and  we  faid,  that  altho'  it 
fhould  be  fo  ill  made,  that  a  man  might  take  the  head 
of  a  calf  for  that  of  an  afs,  we  would  be  fatisfied  with 
it. 

§  8.  y^  fare  way  for  the  learned  writer  to  clear  up 
all  his  doubts  with  refpsd:  t   this  mjttcr. 

Have  you  flill  any  doubts,  fir  ?  The  following  is  an 
cafy  method  of  fatisfying  them.  Depofit  in  the  hands 
of  a  notary  one  hundred  marks  of  bar-gold,  and  one 
hundred  thoufand  livres  in  money  ;  enter  into  a  pub- 
lick  engagement,  properly  drawn  up,  to  give  this 
whole  fum  to  that  founder,  who  in  the  fhortelt  time 
Ihall  calt  fuch  a  figure  as  we  have  defcribed. 

If  no  artift  can  be  found  capable  of  executing  this 
in  eight  days,  we  promife  to  make  a  public  retrada- 
tion  and  confeffion  of  our  ignorance. 

As  you  are  fure  that  a  golden  calf  of  three  feet, 
cannot  be  cafl  in  lefs  than  fix  months,  you  run  no 
rilk  ;  and  if  you  did  run  any  rifk,  what  are  an  hun- 
dred marks  of  gold,  and  one  hundred  thouiand  livres 
to  a  rich  man  and  a  philofopher  ? 

.   3  s 

(1")  Tbrte  days.  We  were  informed  that  the  workmen  at  Paris  wsre  not 
remarkable  for  executing  at  the  time  promifed,  and  that  in  making  u  bargain 
with  tlieni  it  was  neceffary  to  bind  them  up  by  great  forfeitures,  it  the  work 
was  not  completely  done  in  the  fpace  of  time  jjiven.  We  freely  own  that  wc 
did  not  follow  this  method  with  thofe  who  required  but  three  d  ys  from  us, 
but  we  were  very  careful  to  bind  thofe  up  who  required  eijjht.     ^'lut. 

(2)  Ofjcveral  c<i/.^j.  Pliny  the  elder  obfervcs,  that  the  Egyptian  artifts  were 
fo  (kilful  in  proportions,  that  the  different  parts  of  a  flatiie  were  tlillributed 
to  difFereiU  workmen,  who  executed  them  feparately  It  was  fufficient  to 
know  the  height  of  the  ftatue,  to  make  all  the  limbs  in  due  proportion- 
Then  the  only  bufinefs  was  to  put  thtm  together,  and  it  is  well  known  that 
foldcring  in  gold  and  filver  is  eaficr  than  in  hrafs.  Perhaps  the  workmen 
i\aron  employed  were  not  fo  (kilful,  but  might  they  not  follow  this  nictheC 
»nd  form  their  ftatue  by  their  feveral  calls  ?     ^iut. 


502  A      S     H    O     R    T 

Enter  into  this  agreement  then,  fir.  You  will 
not  pay  too  high  for  the  triple  fatisfaclion  of  inform- 
ing yourfelf,  inflrucling  the  world,  and  bringing  us 
to  confufion.  If  vou  refufe  to  come  into  it,  we  fhall 
fuppofe  you  fufficiently  anfwered,  and  we  (hall  think 
ourfelves  difpenfed  from  giving  you  any  anfwer  here- 
after, let  you  fay  what  you  will  on  the  art  of  cafting 
metals. 

NINETEENTH    EXTRACT. 

Of  fome  fciencei  and  arts.  Sequel.  Of  chymijiry* 
Examination  of  an  article  taken  out  of  the  Q^eitions 
fur  TEncyclopedie. 

§  I.  SofJie  learned  proceffes^  Is'c.  known  to  tbs 
learned  chymijt. 

"We  think,  fir,  that  we  have  anfwered  you  very 
fully  on  the  art  of  cafting  metals.  Shall  we  be  able 
to  make  as  good  a  defence  with  refpeQ  to  chymiftry? 

Here  efpecially,  you  fhevi^  all  the  depth  and  extent 
of  your  knowledge.  Muft  we  not  form  the  higheffc 
ideas  of  it  when  we  read  what  follows  ? 

Text.  "  I  reduced  gold  into  pafte  with  mercury. 
*'  I  dlifolved  it  with  aqua  regia.  .  .  I  never  could 
"  calcine  it.  .  .  The  great  heat  liquefies  gold,  but 
"  does  not  calcine  it."  (Queftions  Encyclopediques, 
article  Fonte.) 

Comment.  You  are  acquainted  with  thefe  learned 
procefles!  You  have  made  thefe  curious  experiments, 
thefe  fublime  and  uncommon  difcovories !  What 
a  mighty  chymift  you  are  !  O  Stahl,  Beker,  Geof« 
froi,  Lemeri,  Lavoifier,  Baume,  Cadet,  chymifts 
cfthis  nation,  foreign  chymiils,  bow  your  heads, 
acknowledge  your  mafter.  He  reduces  gold  into 
pafte  with  mercury,  and  lis  diflblves  it  with  aqua  re- 
gia, &c.  O  the  v/onderfuf  fecrets  !  What  an  honour 
it  is  to  us,  that  this  profound  chymift.  can  produce 
nothing  againft:  us  except  the  petty  proceflies  of 
quacks  ! 


COMMENTARY-  503 

^  2,  He  changes  ihejiate  of  the  qitejiion  agahi. 
Yes,  fir,  you  attack  us  with  regard  to  chymiflry, 
by  changing  again  the  (late  of  the  quefti©n. 

Text.  "  The  queftion  was  whether  a  golden  fi- 
*'  gure,  cad  in  a  fingle  night,  can,  without  a  mira- 
"  cle,  be  reduced  into  powder  next  day.*' 

Comment.  Next  day.  Is  it  precifely  next  day  ?  In 
a  fingle  day  ?  No,  fir,  the  queftion  was  not  whether 
a  llatue  of  gold  can  be  reduced  into  powder  in  a  fin- 
gle day.  We  defy  you  to  produce  any  paffage  in  our 
lacred  writings  that  fays  this,  or  any  place  in  which 
we  have  afferted  that  Mofes  reduced  the  golden  calf 
into  powder  in  a  fingle  day.  What  fhail  we  never 
have  truth  ? 

Text.  "  The  queftion  was  whether  it  was  poffi- 
ble  to  reduce  a  golden  figure  into  powder  by  caft- 
ing  it  into  the  fire.     This  was  precifely  the  quef- 


"  tion  " 


Comment.  This  was  not  the  queftion  at  all. 
You  had  afferted,  that  the  moji  learned  chymi/iry  could 
not  reduce  gold  'uito  potable pozvde?-.  This  is  a  general 
aflertion  without  exceptions  ;  and  we  denied  it,  be- 
caufe  it  was  falfe  in  general.  At  length  you  perceive 
the  miftake,  and  in  order  to  get  rid  of  it,  you  cun- 
ningly add  thefe  words,   by  cajling  it  into  the  fire. 

But  thefe  words  are  not  to  be  found  either  in  the 
note  which  we  were  then  anfwering,  nor  in  three  or 
four  other  places  of  your  writings  which  were  then 
before  us. 

To  fay  now  that  the  queftion  was  whether  a  gol- 
den figure  can  be  reduced  into  powder  in  one  day,  by 
cajilng  it  into  thefire^  is  evidently  changing  the  ftate 
of  the  queftion.  This  is  a  poor  ftratagem  which  you 
fhou'd  have  left  to  thofe  vain  weak  men,  who,  when 
they  find  themfelvcs  miftaken,  have  not  fortitude 
enough  to  own  it. 

§  3.  He  makes  us  fay  ivhat  ive  have  not  faid. 
You  continue  to  make  defence  in  chymiftry,  as 
you  did  before,  on  the  art  of  cafting  metals. 


61 


$04  A     S  H  O  R  T 

Text.  *' They  pretend  that  the  reduflion  of  gold 
into  potable  pov/der  by  burning  it,  is  the  mod  eafy 
and  common  operation  of  chymiftry." 

Comment.  Tbey pretend.  Great  man,  you  have 
not  lied^  hut  you  have  faid  the  (^i)  thing  that  is  not. 
No,  we  do  not  pretend  this. 

We  have  pretended  and  do  flill  pretend,  that  the 
rcdudion  of  gold  into  powder,  to  fuch  a  degree  as  to 
render  it  potable,  is  a  very  eafy  and  common  opera- 
tion in  chymillry.  But  we  did  not  fay  any  where 
that  this  was  to  be  done  by  calmiing  it. 

They  pretend.  And  in  order  to  prove  this,  you 
quote  a  long  pafTage  out  of  our  letters,  in  which  we 
do  not  pretend  it.     The  proof  is  excellent  ! 

No,  fir,  we  have  not  fpoke  of  burning  or  calcin- 
ing gold,  either  in  this  paifage,  or  in  any  other  part 
of  our  letters.  Indeed  the  wordfujion  may  be  found 
there  ;  hut  fuji on  is  not  calcination.  Gold  comes  to 
a  (late  of  fufion,  but  not  of  calcination.  Did  you, 
O  learned  chymift,  take  the  one  for  the  other,  and 
thus  confound  ideas  fo  heterogeneous  ? 

You  anfwer  us  m.erely  by  making  us  fay  what  we 
have  not  faid.  This  proceeding  is  artful  ;  but  we 
fubmit  it  to  you  whether  it  is  honourable.  You  add 
fomewhat  peevifhly, 

Text.  "  If  any  one  has  told  you  that  Mr.  Rou- 

clle  calcines  gold  in  the  fire,  he  is  joking  with  you., 

or   he  has  told  you   a    foolifh  thing,  which  you 

ought  not  to  repeat,  no  more  than  all  the  reft  of 

that  nonfenfe  which  you  tranfcribe  with  regard  to 

potable  gold.'* 

Comment.  If  aiiy  one  has  told  you,  ^c.  We  have 
not  been  told,  nor  did  we  tell  you,  that  Mr.  Rou- 
elle  calcines  gold  in  the  fire. 

When  you  make  us  fay  and  repeat  this  nonfenfe, 
you  calumniate  us,  fir,  and  you  trifle  a  little  too  o- 
penly  with  your  readers.  ^ 

(l)    T!j'in2 that  is  lilt.     See  thc  Quaker's LeUcr.     Mtlit. 


COMMENTARY.  505 

We  think  too,  that  what  we  tranfcribed  with  re- 
fpect  to  potable  gold,  was  not  nonfenfe.  We  tranf- 
cribed the  precepts  of  Stahl  and  Senac,  who  were 
not  fools,  and  never  wrote  nonfenfe. 

What,  fir,  can  you  not  anfwer  us  any  way  but  by 
calling  all  the  chymifts  in  the  world  fools !   Do  you 
not  fee  that  our  caufe  will  foon  become  theirs  ? 
§   4.     Mr.  Voltaire^ s  potible  gold. 
We  mentioned  to  you   the  potable  gold  of  the 
chymifts  ;  and  you   objeft   to   us   the  potable   gold 
of  the  quacks.     You  give  a  receipt  for  it.     So  deep 
a  chymift  are  you,  that   this  latter  is  the  only  po- 
table gold  you  are  acquainted  with  in  chymiftry  ! 
Text.     "  Potable  gold  is  a  piece  of  quackery; 
a   mountebank   trick    to  deceive  people.     Thofe 
who  fell   their   potable  goldto  fools,   do  not  put 
two  grains  of  gold  into  their  liquor  ;  or  if  they 
put  a  little  into  it,  they  have  diffolved  it  in  aqua 
regia,  and  they  fweirto  you  that  it  is  potable  gold 
without  acid.     They  ftrip  the  gold,  as  much  as 
poffiole,  of  its  aqua  regia  ;   they  load  it  with   oil 
of  rofemary.     Thefe   preparations  are   very  dan- 
gerous ;   real  poifons,  and  ihofe  who  fell  them  de- 
"  ferve  correction." 

Comment.  Potable  gold  is  a  piece  of  quackery^  Effr. 
Yes,  fir,  that  kind  of  potable  gold  of  which  you  give 
the  receipt,  the  potable  gold  of  quacks,  a  pretend- 
ek  fpecifick  but  a  real  poilbn.  But  the  potable  gold 
of  which  we  fpoke  to  you  is  no  quackery,  fir,  it  is 
neither  a  poifon  nor  a  fpecifick. 

And  yet  you  addrel's  us  in  thefe  words, 
Text.     "  Such  is   your  potable  gold,  of  which 
*'  you  fpeak  rather  rafiily,  as  you  do  of  every  thing 
*'  elfe." 

Comment.     No,  fir,  this  is  not  our  potable  gold, 
ir  is  yours,  it  is  the  potable  gold   o'^    mountebanks. 
Ours  is   that  ot"  Stahl,  of  Senac,  and  of  all  the  chy- 
mifts ;  and  we  have  not  fpolae  rafhly  oi"  it,  nor  of  any 
thing  elfe. 


(( 
cc 

<c 

<c 


5o6  A       S     H     O     R     T 

§  5.  F  ot  able  gold  of  the  chym'ijls. 
It  (Qems  then,  fir,  that  akho'  you  are  acquainted 
with  tt^e  potable  gold  of  mountebanks,  you  have  not 
an  idea  of  that  of  chymiils.  We  had  however  given 
you  the  prcn^efs  of  it.  /\s  you  have  not  attended  to 
it)  p-robably  becaufe  we  delivered  it  in  a  few  words, 
we  (hall  now  lay  it  before  you  at  full  length,  fuch  as 
we  read  it  in  Senac's  ehymiftry. 
.^  " -I;!  order  Iq  render  gold  potable,  fays  this  learn- 
^'  ed  phyfician,  .Mofes  could  not  ufe  fimple  calcina- 
"  tion,  nor  amaigamation,  nor  cementation.  But 
"  Mr.- Starbl  has  removed  all  the  difficulties,  that 
''  ca-n  be  made  on  this  fubjeft.  The  method  which 
''  he  thinks  Mofes  ufed,  is  very  fimple  ;  this  is  it. 

"  Stahi'spatabk  ^old.  Take  three  parts  of  fait  of 
"  tartar,  and  two  of  falt-petre,  which  diflblve  in  the 
"  crucible  ;  throw  in  one  part  of  gold,  it  will  dif- 
folve  in  it  perfedtly.  After  the  fufion  take  the 
fubftanee  from  the  fire,  you  will  find  an  hepar 
fulphuris  which  will  pulverize  ;  put  this  hepar 
fulphuris  into  water,  it  will  eafily  diflblve  in  it ; 
"  filtrate  the  water,  it  will  be  red  and  loaded  with 
"  gold.  This  forms  a  potable  gold  of  a  difagreeable 
"   tade,  very  like  that  of  brimftone  powder." 

Mr.  Grolfe,  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences,  expref- 
fes  himfeif  nearly  in  the  fame  terms,  in  his  Memoire, 
given  in  '-733. 

"  The  procefs,  he  fays,  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Stahl, 
"  is  to  make  an  hepar  with  fulphur  and  a  fixed  al- 
*'  kali.  When  this  hepar  is  in  fufion  at  the  fire,  if 
**  gold  be  thrown  into  it,  it  divides  it  fo,  and  retains 
it  fo  ftrongly,  that  when  this  mixture  is  diflblved 
by  water,  the  gold  paiFes  with  the  folution  of  the 
hepar  thro'  the  filtrating  paper." 
What  think  you  of  this,  fir?  Is  not  gold,  which 
pafles  thro'  a  filtrating  paper,  reduced  into  parts 
fmall  enough  to  be  fwallowed-? 

Such  is  tiie  potable  gold  of  chymifls  ;  and  fuch  is 
ours  ;  you  lee  that  aqua  regia  and  oil  of  rofemxry 
are  not  ingredients  in  it,  as  they  are  in  that  ot  the 


(C 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  A^.  507 

mountebanks.  Do  you  ftill  think  ihai  wg  have  fpoke 
of  it  raflily  ?  And  do  you  thiiik.,  di^it  after  quoting 
Senac,  as  we  did,  we  could  lay  or  believe  that  chy- 
miftry  renders  gold  potable  by  caicimng  ii  ? 

§   6.     0fthelateMr,Rcuelle^urA.fikerefpc6lh8 

had  for  Mr.  Voltaire's  chpnijlry, 
A  propos  with  regard  to  your  chyiniitry,  we  had 
quoted  Mr.  Rouelle,  whom  your  a^  adeaiy  of  fci- 
ences  has  fince  loft.  You  do  us  the  honour  of  men- 
tioning this  paffage  from  our  edition  of  1769  at 
Laurence  Prault's,  you  fay,  ui  h  approbatt^.'n  and  pri- 
vilege ;  but  in  mentioning  it  you  indulge  yourfelf  in 
two  little  pieces  of  art. 

You  add  fome  words  to  it  which  wft  had  expung- 
ed out  of  this  edition  left  they  fliould  off.nd  y-u,  and 
you  retrench  from  it  fome  flattering  ex.  Tions 
which  we  had  inferted  with  refped:  to  you-  _  oba« 
bly  both  thefe  things  are  done  thro'  modefty. 

But  prithee,  fir,  when  you  quote  u<>  ncxo  time, 
lefs  modefty  and  more  truth  !  But  more  efpecially, 
fir,  we  befeech  you  not  to  make  us  fay  what  we: 
have  notfaid,  and  even  the  contrary  of  what  we  have 
faid. 

Let  us  return  to  Mr.  Rouelle. 
Text.     "  There  was  a  Mr.  Rouelle    1  Earned 
''  chymift  and  apothecary    to  the  kintr       ho  v/cnt 
"  with  an  officer  oi   the  rev^-nuc   Jr    •  -       ,  to  Col- 
"  mar,  where  I  have  a  fmall  eftate  was  com- 

ing to  try  an  earth,  which  a  chyt..  ux  Fonts 

propofed  to  change  into  falt-petr^..  .  roid  Mr. 
"  Rouelle  that  he  would  make  no  ^-^^-r-.nre  ;  he 
"  afked  me  why  ?   Becaufe  fays  I.  believe 

*'  in   tranfmutations  ;    I  think  there  iK)ne  ; 

"  God  has  made  all  things,  and  men  v;.:  uYem- 

"  ble  and  divide." 

Comment.  You  have  a  fmall  eftuic  '^nJmar. 
We  rejoice  at  it,  fir  ;  you  never  v/ill  ^  .0  great 
a  fortune  as  we  wifti  you.  We  are  in.  tned  that 
benevolence  and  generofity  chiefly  cured  ..le  di-^'pofal 
of  it  J  we  gladly  take  this  opportunity  ofgivir^-yqa 


it. 


5o8  A      SHORT* 

deferved  pralfe.  May  all  the  rich  employ  their  flores 
as  you  do,  in  relieving  the  indigent,  and  making 
men  happy. 

You  do  not  believe  in  tranfmutators.  You  are 
right  ;  many  people  have  repented  their  too  greac 
faith  in  them.  Much  money  is  fpent  with  them 
•without  any  certainty  of  making  gold  ;  you  a£l  wife- 
ly in  not  trufling  them  with  your  gold. 

However,  we  can  fcarcely  think  that  the  tranf- 
mutators will  be  knocked  down  by  the  little  argu- 
ment you  propofe  againft  them.  They  may  grant 
you,  that  God  has  made  every  thing  and  yet  anfwer 
vou  that  in  their  tranfmutations  they  do  not  pretend 
vo  create,  but  only  to  aifemble  and  divide  ;  that  no 
rranfmutator  propofes  to  make  the  fubdance,  but  to 
change  the  arrangement  and  configuration  of  the 
parts  ;  which  is  not  ftriftly  fiiaking. 

We  doubt  befides  whether  Mr.  Rouelle,  whom 
you  call  a  learned  chymift,  and  who  is  really  fo, 
wanted  any  of  your'leflfons  ;  and  that  you  were  un- 
der a  neceffity  of  proving  to  him  that  he  could  not 
make  falt-petrg. 

However,  the  Mr.  Rouelle  whom  we  quote, 
is  not  the  one  of  whom  you  fpeak,  but  his  elder 
brother,  Mr.  Rouelle  of  the  Academy  of  Scien- 
ces. 

Text.  "  I  cannot  tell  whether  Mr.  Rouelle  puts 
*'  himfelf  in  a  paffion,  when  a  man  happens  to  differ 
*'  from  him  in  opinion." 

Comment.  Mr.  Rouelle,  fir,  was  an  enthufiaft 
in  chymillry  ;  falfe  reafonings  on  this  fcience  fret- 
ted him,  they  fay,  in  a  very  fingular,  and  fometimes 
comical  manner. 

Thisfmall  failing  was  compenfated  by  fome  excel- 
lent qualities.  Some  allowances  mud  be  made  to 
irreat  men,  fir.  This  is  a  maxim  with  us;  and  it 
cannot  be  difpleafing  to  you. 

Wlien,  in  order  to  fret  him,  your  authority,  was 
put  in  oppofirion  to  his  ;  Mr.  Voltaire,  he  would 
anfv/er  v/ith  fire,  Mr.  Voltaire  is  a  fine  fpcaker,  but 


COMMENTARY.  509 

Vkh  all  his  fine  fpeeches  he  fpeaks  very  incorredlly, 
when  he  attempts  to  fpeakof  chymiftry.  Mr.  RoueU 
le's  friends  will  know  him  again  by  thefe  expref- 
fions  ;  they  will  know  him  again  ftill  better  when 
v/e  add,  that  at  the  time  he  faid  this,  and  before  he 
had  done,  he  fat  down  and  got  up  again  five  or  fix 
times,  and  that  his  chair  was  removed  out  of  its 
J)lace  fo  many  times. 

However,  Mr.  Rouelie  was  a  man  of  tafle.  In 
you,  fir,  he  could  diftinguifh  the  poet  from  the  chy- 
mifl: ;  altho'  he  did  not  admire  you  in  the  latter 
charafter,  yet  he  loved  you  in  the  former.  You 
conclude  by  faying  to  us. 

Text.  "  If  Mr.  Rouelie  is  angry  with  me  ;  ff 
*'  you  are  angry,  I  am  forry  for  it,  both  on  your 
"  account  and  his ;  but  I  do  not  think  him  fo  palTi- 
"  onate  a  m?.n  as  you  fay." 

Comment.  If  Mr.  RouelU  is  angry  vjith  me,  tffc* 
He  was  fometimes  angry  with  your  chymiflry,  fir, 
but  he  was  not  angry  with  you  ;  and  the  flyle  in 
which  we  anfwer  you,  is  not  an  angry  tone  ;  there- 
fore you  need  not  be  forry. 

I  do  not  think  him  fo  pajjtonate,  ^c.  Alas,  fir, 
Mr.  Rouelie  is  dead,  this  is  the  only  fubjed  of  our 
forrows !  Let  his  afhes  reft  in  peace,  and  let  us  calt 
nothing  but  flowers  on  his  grave. 

We  (hall  only  obferve  that  our  letters  appeared 
before  his  death,  and  we  have  not  heard  that  he  dif- 
liked  them. 

We  (hall  now  fum  up  in  a  few  words  what  wc 
have  faid  of  your  chymiftry. 

You  had  afferted,  without  limitation,  that  the  ut- 
moft  efforts  of  chymiftry  could  not  reduce  gold  into 
potable  powder.  Since  the  publication  of  our  let- 
ters, you  perceived  your  miftake  ;  nothing  was  ea- 
li'er  than  to  confefs  it.  Next  to  the  glory  of  never 
falling  into  an  error,  the  higheft  degree  of  honour 
in  a  good  man  is  to  confefs  his  error. 

Inltead  of  making  this  noble  confeflion,  you  have 
chofen  to  maintain  a  falfehood  3  and  in  order  to  vin- 

3T 


5fo  A       SHORT 

dicate  your  former  opinion,  you  have  altered  its 
nature  ;  you  have  added  words  to  it  which  were  not 
in  it  ;  you  have  changed  the  ftate  of  the  queftion  j 
you  make  us  fay  what  we  have  not  faid,  &c.  Truly, 
fir,  this  manner  of  defence  will  not  appear  very  con- 
vincing. 

This  is  not  all  j  you  quarrel  with  us  about  our 
gold  reduced  into  potable  pov/der.  In  vain  have  we 
quoted  Stahl,  Senac,  le  Fevre,  the  Memoirs  of  the 
Academy  of  Sciencv-S,  and  all  the  chymilts  ;  you 
will  allow  no  other  potable  gold  but  that  of  moun- 
tebanks. Were  we  wronir  when  we  faid  with  Mr, 
Rouelle,  that  chymiltry  was  not  your  talent  ? 

No,  fir,  it  is  not,  confefs  it.  You  went  into  the 
laboratories  of  the  chymifts  to  look  for  weapons,  and 
you  loft  your  way  among  the  crucibles  and  chymi- 
cal  velfels. 

TWENTIETH      EXTRACT. 

Of  certain  arts  and  fciences.  Sequel.  Of  writiitg 
engraved  on  Jione.  Of  the  Prefhytcriam^  of  Fairfax 
a  ?2d  Cromwell ;  and  of  the  Village  of  Nafeby,  Is'c,  Is'c. 
Examination  of  an  article  taken  o«/ <?/" //^<?  Q^eftions 
fur  I'Encyclopedie. 

§    I .     Of  writing  e?igraved  onflone. 

You  return  again  to  this  fubjeft,  fir,  unexpected- 
ly. This  is  at  lead  the  twelfth  time  that  you  have 
fpoke  of  it ;  perhaps  it  may  be  the  laft.  Let  us  fee 
then,  for  the  lad  time,  what  you  have  to  fay  on  it. 
You  addrefs  us- in  thefe  polite  words. 

Text.     "  You  are  as  bad  judges  of  writing  as  of 
"  metal.'*     (Qiieft.  Encyclop.  Art.  Fonte.) 

Comment.  Might  we  not  anfvvcr  you,  that  you 
are  as  good  a  judge  of  writing  as  of  metal  ? 

Text.  "  It  had  been  faid  that  the  sncients 
"  wrote  on  nothing  but  (lone,  brick,  and  wood.*' 

Comment.  You  have  faid  fometimes  that  they 
wrote  on  nothing  but  Itone  ;  fometimes  that  they 
T^rote  on  flonc  and  on  metal  \  fometimes  that  they 


COMMENTARY,  511 

wrote  on  flone,  brick  and  wood.  Prithee,  fir,  be 
fogood  as  to  tell  us,  once  for  all,  what  is  really  your 
hypothefis. 

Text.  "  You  forget  the  wood,  and  you  make 
"  many  weak  objections  to  done." 

Comment.  We  forget  wood!  So  far  from  forget- 
ting it,  that  we  have  mentioned  it  eight  times,  and 
have  implied  it  fo  many  times  by  &c.  in  one  letter. 
How  often  mud  a  perfon  mention  a  thing,  to  fliew 
you  that  it  is  not  forgotten  ? 

As  to  our  difficulties  with  regard  to  flone,  we  did 
expeft  that  you  would  not  find  them  •very  good. 
But  behold,  fir,  the  difference  of  taftes  !  Many  peo- 
ple of  fome  learning  have  not  found  them  lueak. 

And  if  they  are  weak  why  do  you  not  anfwer 
them  ?  This  would  make  it  an  eafier  taflv.  But  it 
feems  you  will  not  do  it.  They  are  not  worth  the 
trouble  !  We  underftand  you  ! 

Text.  "  But  above  all  you  forget  that  Deutero- 
"  nomy  was  written  on  mortar." 

Comment.  We  do  not  forget,  that  in  the  note 
which  we  were  anfwering,  there  was  no  mention  at 
all  of  Deuteronomy's  being  written  on  mortar.  You 
had  not  yet  made  this  curious  and  learned  obferva- 
tion.  Could  we  forefee  that  you  would  one  day 
make  it  ?  Therefore  you  charge  us  with  not  having 
anfwered  a  difficulty  which  (i)  you  did  not  propofe. 

Text.  "  There  is  a  little  miflake  here,  and  par- 
''  don  me  for  faying  it,   a  little  difhonefly.'* 

Comment.  There  is  certainly  a  little  of  both  ; 
but  it  is  eafy  to  fee  on  which  fide  it  lies. 

§  2.  0/"  the  Prepyterians,  of  I'airfix^   Cromvuell, 

What  fhall  we  fay,  fir,  of  the  Prefbyterians,  of 
Fairfax,  and  Cromwell,  he.  Of  their  victory,  and 
of  the  village  of  Nafeby,  where  they  found  above 
fix  hundred  and  fixty  thoufand  fheep,  feventy-two 
thoufand    oxen,    thirty-two    thoufand    little  girls, 

(r)  Voui'ii not propufe.  •  5i'e  have  fincc  anfwcTcd  it,  fee  page  486. 


512  A    SHORT 

which  were  not  all  little  girls !  Shall  we  anfwer  here 
this  ingenious  and  (harp  all ufion  ? 

No  1  When  you  (hall  have  proved  and  clez^rly 
proved,  that  thefe  fix  hundred  thoufand  fheep  were 
found  in  a  village  ;  that  fix  hundred  and  fixty  thou- 
fand fheep  could  not  fubfifl  in  a  country  eight 
leagues  fquare,  and  that  the  inhabitants  were  not 
permitted  to  graze  their  cattle  in  the  neighbouring 
deferts  j  but  efp^  cially  when  you  have  proved  that 
a  man  may  fay  of  a  cov'^uiy,  of  which  he  knows  not 
the  limits,  that  it  is  but  eight  leagues  fquare  ;  and 
that  this  country  of  eight  leagues  fquare,  bounded 
by  a  rivulet  on  thefouth,  extends  to  the  fouth,  be- 
yond that  rivulet  fifty  leagues.  When  I  fay  all  thefe 
things  are  proved,  which  no  doubt  will  be  very  ea- 
fy,  we  fhall  endeavour  to  anfwer  you.    . 

We  had  already  dwelt  perhaps  too  much  on  this 
fubje£t ;  we  fhall  not  touch  it  again ;  and  we  are 
forry  to  perceive,  that  contrary  to  our  intention,  our 
reflexions  have  chagrined  you.  You  tell  us  with  fin- 
cerity, 

Text.  *'  You  are  fo  much  attached  to  the  Eng- 
*'  lifh  Prefbyterians,  that  you  pufh  party  fpirit  fo  far, 
*'  as  to  be  angry  with  fenfible  people,  who  think 
*'  thefe  accounts  a  little  exaggerated,  and  fufpedl 
**  fome  errors  in  the  copier." 

Comment.  T^ou  are  Jo  attached  to  the  PreJhyterU 
ens,  ^c.  And  you  who  are  fo  tolerant,  fir,  fo  hu- 
mane, fo  gentle  ;  why  do  you  fhew  fo  much  hatred 
and  antipathy  againfl  the  Prefbyterians ! 

So  far  as  to  be  angry.  We  were  not  angry  ;  we 
fpoke  in  the  mofl  gentle  and  moderate  manner  pofTi- 
ble.  You  are  the  only  man,  fir,  that  has  found  paf- 
fion  and  party  fpirit  in  our  letters. 

Who  Jiifpccl  fojiie  errors  in  the  copier.  We  readily 
acknowledge  the  faults  of  copiers,  as  has  appeared, 
when  they  are  proved  ;  but  we  do  not  fee  that  you 
have  clearly  fhewn  the  necefhty  of  admitting  any  in 
the  paffage  before  us. 


COMMENTARY.  513 

.5  3*  Judgment  pajfed  on  our  letter i  by  the  illujiriom 
writer. 

Our  letters,  fir,  have  not  had  the  happinefs  of 
pleafing  you.  In  vain  have  we  aflumed  the  gentleft 
flyle  ;  in  vain  have  we  tempered  every  where  tho 
mildeft  criticifm  with  the  moft  flattering  encomiums ! 
You  have  pronounced  them  impudent^  uncivil^  adap^ 
ted  only  to  criticks  ivithout  tajle. 

Such  as  thefe  letters  are  however,  you  do  not 
think  us  able  to  have  wrote  them.  Whether  in  joke 
or  earneft,  you  fuppofe  that  fome  one  has  held  the 
pen  for  us ;  and  you  grow  angry  with  this  our  wri- 
ter, and  fay  haftily. 

Text.  "  1  fhall  never  requefl:  him  to  be  my  fe- 
*'  cretary." 

Comment.  Truly,  fir,  this  is  a  great  punifh- 
ment  !  But  upon  the  whole,  you  had  better  not  re. 
quefl  this  favour  from  him  ;  as  he  loves  truth,  and 
you  hate  contradiftion,  it  would  be  hard  for  you  to 
agree  well  together. 

Text.  "  For  he  makes  his  mafters  fpeak  like 
"  very  ignorant  men." 

Comment.  Altho'  you  are  not  fatisfied,  fir,  with 
the  manner  in  which  he  makes  us  fpeak,  yet  we  think 
that  we  have  no  reafon  to  complain  of  it  ;  it  appears 
that  our  letters  have  not  met  with  fome  fuccefs.  Some 
of  the  learned  who  love  you,  and  whofe  approbation 
is  therefore  more  precious  to  us,  have  not  fcrupled 
to  fay  that  the  Jewilh  authors  are  not  deficient  in 
wit  or  learning ;  that  good  obfervations  may  be 
found  iii  them,  and  (i)  refearches  into  antiquity, 
&c.  And  others  have  found  in  them,  (what  flat- 
ters us  much  more)  not  only  (2)  moderation,  but  ci- 
vility and  poHtenefs.  By  what  fatality  has  it  hap- 
pened, fir,  that  you  have  feen  in  them  precifely  the 
contrary  ? 

(1)  Refearches,    &c.      See  the  Mercure   &  le  Journal  Encycl.  pediquc 

annec  1769,  Aut. 

(2)  Msileration.     Sec  le  Mcrcure,  les  Journaux  de«  bcaux  Arts,  dc   Ver- 
dun, del  Savans,  the  Monthly  Review,  &c.    Aut, 


514  A       SHORT 

Text.  "  If  I  was  not  the  mod  tolerant  of  men^ 
*'  I  v/ould  tell  you  that  you  are  the  moil  impudent 
aad  uncivil  men  in  the  world/' 

Comment.  0  the  inoft  tolerant  of  men  !  Your 
toleration  is  well  know,  it  diiplays  itfelf  in  every  page 
uf  jour  works. 

J  luoiild  tell  you,  <jfe.     You  have  fald  fo  many 
/Obliging  things  to  fo  many  civil   chriflians,  perhaps 
you  are   tempted  to  fay  fomething  very  tender  to  a 
parcel  of  poor  Jews. 

The  mofi  impudent  men.  Truly,  to  have  dared  to 
to  tell  Mr.  Voltaire,  that  he  was  a  little  miflaken 
with  regard  to  the  Madianites  and  their  country,  &c. 
occ.  this  was  a  very  impudent  thing  ;  and  to  prove 
it  too,  was  a  very  uncivil  thing  ! 

Bat  knowingly  to  impute  abfurdities  to  one's  ad- 
rerfaries,  which  they  never  faid  to  talk  of  them  as  of 
people  hurried  on  by  the  fpirit  of  party,  as  moll  ig- 
norant paffionate  people,  this  is  the  very  fummit  of 
civility  ! 

Text.  "  You  forget  in  what  age  you  are  wrlt- 
"*'  ing.  Your  trifling  fatire  will  be  difregarded  by 
"  genteel  people  of  fome  learning." 

Comment.     We  have  anfwered  your  trifling    cri-' 
ticifms,  without  any  trifling  fatire  ;   nothing  is  more 
difl.ant  from  our  views  and  charafter  than  fatire. 

Genteel  people  of  fome  learning  have,  you  know, 
honoured  our  letters  with  their  approbation  ;  and  you 
probably  had  not  a  very  low  opinion  of  them,  fnice 
you  deigned  to  anfwer  them. 

We  forget  in  luhat  age  ive  'write  !  And  do  you 
not  forget  it  yourlelf  more  than  any  body,  you,  who, 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  would  make  your  cotempo- 
raries  believe,  that  in  Mofes's  time,  the  records  of 
the  citi'js  of  Phenicia,  the  accounts  of  their  mer- 
chants, the  books  of  their  writers,  he  thofe  of 
Sanchcniatho,  of  job,  of  Thaut,  &c.  were  written 
on  ftone-  piobnblv  for  the  convenience  of  the  rea- 
dertJ,  andthefacllity  of  carriage  ?  You,  who   believe 

)urrelf  an  artifl-,  '.md  who  pretend  that  amongfl:  all 


•>■  f 


C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y.  515 

the  founders  and  goldfmlths  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, there  is  not  one  who  can  without  the  help  of 
a  miracle,  cart;  a  golden  calf  coarfely  executed,  in  lefs 
than  fix  months  ;  you  who  in  order  to  prove  it,  llate 
the  procefifes  which  are  ufed  when  mafterpieces  are 
cart:,  fuch  as  the  llatues  in  public  places  ;  and 
who  believe  your  cotemporaries  weak  enough  to  be 
taken  in  by  this  vain  parade  ?  You  who  fet  up 
for  a  chymirt:,  and  in  1771,  know  no  other  potabic 
gold  but  that  of  mountebanks  ;  who,  in  1771, 
fo  many  years  after   Stahl,  know  not,   or  would  \yilii 

,   to  conceal  from  your  readers,  that  chymical  procefs 
which  he  difcovered,  and  which  no  chymirt:  or  learn- 

Ver  in  chymirt;ry  is  ignorant  of?  You  who  fay,  and 
repeat  athoufand  times  in  1771,  that  the  Jews  ofier- 
ed  human  vidims  to  God  j  that  their  law  commanded 
thefe  deteftable  facrihces  ;  that  they  were  a  nation  of 
cannibals  ;  and  that  their  prophets  promifed  them  as 
a  feart:,  that  thev  Ihould  eat  the  llefh  of  horfe  and  of 
man  ?  &c. 

.    If  you  are  writing  all  thefe  fine  things,  fir,  for  the 
age  you  live  in,  what  an  idea  mufc  you  have  of  it ! 

Probably  you  faid  to  yourfelf,  when  you  took  up 
the  pen,  what  a  (i)  celebrated  writer  did  not  liiy, 
altho'  you  charge  him  with  it,  "  My  cotemporaries 
"  are  ignorant  foolirti  people,  my  reputation  and  my 
"  decifive  tone  will  awe  them  ;  they  are  trifling, 
"  light,  unthinking  people,  who  take  bons  mots  for 
"  arguments,  and  flourifnes  for  proofs  ;  I  will  make 
"  them  laugh  and  they  will  believe  me."  This  un- 
doubtedly was  the  clafs  of  readers,  whom  you 
thought  your  ani\ver  would  fuit.  For  them  v/as  cal- 
culated that  ingenious,  elegant,  agreeable  play  of 
words,  which  you  difcharge  againrt:  (2)  a  periodical 

(1)  A  celebrated  ivritsr-  Ze.z  Eiian^'ile  dii,j'^ur.  Thefe  very  wcrds  nearly 
are  put  into  the  learned  Ablvj  Fleiiri's  mouth,  a  writer  as  refpedabla  for  his 
fiiKcrity  as  for  his  wife  ami  found  philofophy.  They  make  him  lay  it  down 
as  a  principle,  that  his  countrymen  are  fools,  who  can  bear  any  thing  to  be 
fdid  to  them.      Aut. 

(z)  A  perloiUcal  ivrjier.  The  infult  offered  to  the  author  of  Anree  literai- 
rc  oa  our  accQunt,  cawfes  an  iucrcafe  of  our  gratitude  towards  iuni,  and  tc- 


5i6  A      S    H    O    R    t 

writer,  who  has  deigned  to  give  a  favourable  ac» 
count  of  our  letters,  as  if  he  was  the  only  one  whd 
fpoke  well  of  them  j  therefore  you  do  not  know  that 
•out  of  all  your  periodical  writers,  there  is  not  one 
■who  has  not  fpoke  favourabiyof  them.  Really,  one 
would  think  that  you  read  nothing  but  VAnnee  lite» 
raire,  not  a  paffage  of  it  efcapes  you  !  You  treat  this 
journal  as  you  do  the  Jews  ;  you  profefs  the  higheft 
contempt  for  it  every  where,  and  yet  you  are  conti- 
nually returning  to  it.  People  do  not  generally 
fpeak  fo  much  of  what  they  defpife. 

We  have  not  the  honour  of  knowing  the  author 
'oirAnnee  literaire,  but  we  read  his  works,  fir,  as 
you  do;  and  we  will  loudly  affirm,  that  a  man  like 
him,  'who  has  contended  for  fo  many  years  againft: 
the  double  torrent  of  impiety  and  falfe  tafte,  Is  an 
ufeful  member  of  fociety. 

§  6.  ^  piece  of  advice  given  and  returned^ 

You  conclude,  fir,  by  giving  us  a  piece  of  advice, 
which  we  will  take  the  liberty  of  returning  to  you. 

Text.  *'  Believe  me,  lay  afide  your  ancient  com- 
"  mentators,  and  don't  infult  Chriftians." 

Comment.  Lay  ajtde  your  ancient  commentators,, 
Why  lay  them  afide,  if  they  may  be  ufeful  ? 

Don*t  infult  Chri/iians.     You  fuddenly  take  up  the 

'Chrilliancaufe  with  great  warmth  !  Indeed,  fir,  you 

may  be  anfwered  without  infulting  Chriflians,  or  e- 

yen  a  fingle  Chriftian.     It  is  not  infulting  a  writer, 

modeftly  and  refpedfully  to  point  out  his  mi  flakes. 

Don't  infult  Chrifiians.  This  is  good  advice  ;  but 
to  whom  are  you  giving  it  ?  To  Jews,  who  are  con- 
tinually employed  in  clearing  the  fcriptures,  on 
which  the  faith  of  Chriflians  is  built,  from  your  in- 
vedives  I  Give  this  advice,  fir,  to  the  author  des 
Homilies  fur  I'ancien  &  le  Nouveau  Teflament,  to 
the  author  des  Qiieftions  de  Zapata,  to  the  author  du 
Diner  du  Comte  de  Boulainvilliers,  to  the  author  of 

^ards  all  thofe  periodical  vrrlters,  who  have  given  a  favourable  account  of 
©ur  Iett«r8.  We  plainly  fee  the  danger  they  run,  who  fpeak  freely  of  thofc 
writings  in  which  Mr.  VoUaixe  »nd  hit  works  are  m«atioQcd.    ^'ut. 


1 

C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  r.  517 

the  Philofophical  Didionary,  of  the  Epiflle  to  the 
Romans,  of  TEvangile  du  jour,  to  thefe  writers  you 
ihould  give  in  charge  not  to  infult  Chriftians. 

Don't  infult  Chrijiinns.  What  fund  for  a  large  and 
bitter  comment,  would  thefe  words  and  (i)  thefe 
writings  fupply  us  with,  if  we  were  malicious !  But 
here  we  flop  ;  do  you  judge  whether  we  love  fatire. 

Believe  me,  lay  afide,  l^c.  Believe  us,  fir,  lay  a- 
fide  your  chymiftry,  (we  told  you  fo  before,)  and  the 
art  of  calling  metals,  and  the  art  of  writing  on 
Hone.  But  above  all,  lay  afide  the  Hebrews,  their 
language,  their  laws,  their  hiftory,  &c.  or  when  you 
fpeak  of  them  hereafter,  do  it  with  more  exaclnefs 
and  impartiality. 

CONCLUSION. 

What  has  been  our  object,  fir,  in  all  thefe  obferva- 
tions  ?  Was  it  to  humble  Mr.  Voltaire,  and  to  en- 
joy an  infolent  triumph  over  a  great  man  ?  Far  be 
from  us  fuch  thoughts  !  We  have  been  attacked  and 
abufed  in  our  patriarchs,  our  kings,   and   prophets, 
our  laws  and  manners,   &;c.  and  we  thought  that  we 
might  juftly    defend   ourfelves  ;   that   we   might  in- 
ftrucl  thofe  who  are  dazzled  with  your  flyle  and  fai- 
lles of  wit ;   that  we  might  convince  them,  chiefly  in 
this  cafe  of  the  Jews,  that  they  mud  examine  before 
they  believe  ;  that  altho'  you  are  a  great  man  and 
a  great  philofopher,  yet  you  have  your  abfences  of 
mind,  your  prejudices  and  errors  ;   that  your  quota- 
tions are  fometimes  falfe,  your  tranflations  unfaith- 
ful, your  aifertions  rafli,  your  decifions  unfiiir  ;   in 
Ihort,  that  he  who  would  refl  his  faith  on  your  word, 
or  take  you  for  a  lure  and  infallible  guide,  as  many 
credulous  readers  have  done,  would  neceifarily   ex- 
pofe  himfelf  to  many  miftakes. 

3  u 

(i)   T/if/f  tvrittnv!.     In  thefe  Chriftians  arc  cxprefsly  called  fanaticks,  per- 
f«cutors,  rogues,  dujc?,  impoftors;   they  are  twM  that  they  and  their  golpel, 
areiiats,  thai  they  i-.avc  told  lies,  riiiculous  lisi  with  tbiir  miracles.     JLiU^. 


5i8,  A      S    H    O    R    T 

Upon  the  whole,  fir,  we  thnik  it  our  duty  to 
make  this  publick  declaration  before  we  coaclude  ; 
*^'he  multitude  of  miilakes,  contraditStions,  and  bad 
arguments,  which  we  have  pointed  out  in  your  writ- 
ings, and  fo  many  more  which  might  be  pointed  out, 
fiiall  never  diminifh  our  efleem  for  your  perfonal 
qualities,  or  our  admiration  for  your  talents.  Not- 
withihinding  the  bitternefs  of  your  anfwer  and  the 
fharpnels  of  our  reply  ;  thefe  fhall  never  take  any 
tiling  from  the  iincerity  of  our  encomiums,  or  the 
fervour  of  our  good  willies  for  your  welfare. 

We  affirm  it  with  fatisfaftion ;  no  writer  of  this 
age  has  run  fo  fplendid  a  career  as  you  have  done. 
Enjoy  the  glory  you  have  acquired  ;  rule  over  the 
empire  of  letters  by  your  talents,  and  over  the  coun- 
try you  inhabit  by  your  benevolence.  Let  your  ef- 
'  tare  continue  to  be  an  afylum  to  the  (i)  unfortun- 
ate ;  there  cherifh  (2)  difcontented  induftry,  en- 
courage population,  give  life  (3)  to  agriculture. 
Let  French  vefl'els  (4)  fail  freely  on  the  lake,  and  be 
indebted  for  this  to  your  cares  and  fortune.  Raife 
ftatues  to  your  king,  and  temples  to  your  God. 
And  fince  thro'  a  bleffing,  which  few  writers  have  ex- 
perienced, the  icy  hand  of  age  has  not  yet  extin- 
guKhed  the  fire  of  genius,  confecrate  your  laft  la- 
bours to  an  ufeful  and  honourable  purpofe,  to  that 
of  overturning  the  pernicious  and  foolilii  (5)  fy  Items 

(i)  Tl^e  unfortunate.     Midemoifalle   Corneille,  the  Calafes,  Sirv«n,  and 
niany  others. 
(;)   DifcouttnteJ iniliiftry.     Several  artificers  of   Geneva   were  received  by 
-Mr     Voltaire  ami  fct  uf>  on  his  credit. 

(3)  To  a^ricultu,!.  See  ihe  iiluftrious  writer's  'etters  to  the  bifliop  of  An- 
neci,  Mr.  Voltaire  has  bctn  charged  with  making  too  great  a  parade  of  his 
aCls  of  beneficence  ancl  gcturoruy.  This  is  an  unfair  charge.  A  great  man 
who  ha^rfiteniies,  has  a  right  tb  publifli  the  good  which  he  docs.  Happy  tkac 
age  in  which  all  the  rich  will  do  good  and  will  tell  it  too  !      jiut. 

(4)  .<ui I  freely  on  the  l.th.  Thc  firll  French  frigate  that  ^yas  fecn  on  the 
lake  of  Geneva  was  fcii;ed  fir  dtbc  Mr.  Voltaire  gave  thirty  tJioufand  11- 
vres  to  clear  it.      See  les  irplien-.eriilcs  dii  Citoycn.     Aut. 

is)  Syji  LIS  nf  four  foi>hiils.  Altho' Mr.  Voltaire  who  has  confuted  the  5)y?f'n 
ffttature,  ((^eltitjns  Encyclopeditiues,)  invites  people  to  read  it.  (Queftions 
Encyclopetiiquf-,,)  we  have  not  read  it,  and  we  do  not  repent  it.  Sonic 
learned  ChriRiuivs-  ail'ure  us,  that  it  i»  a  work  both  abfurd  and  tirefome,  in 
which  the  author,  wandering  in  the  mids  of  his  vainmctaphyficks,  is  pcrfc- 


N 


COMMENTARY,  519 

of  your  fophifts  ;  defpife  their  fecret  murmurs,  and 
endeavour  to  wipe  off  that  fhameful  flain  which  they 
have  cad  on  phiiofophy.  Eilablifli  in  oppoluion  to 
thefe  bold  writers,  the  exigence  of  a  God,  his  juf- 
tice,  his  providence,  &c.  thefe  truths  which  are  en- 
graved on  every  heart,  which  are  dear  to  every  na- 
tion, (i)  the  only  folid  bafis  of  civil  fociety,  which 
with  facrilegious  impudence  they  endeavour  to  over- 
turn. Teach  citizens  to  obey  the  laws,  give  to  legifla- 
tors  lelTons  of  humanity,  ^nd  to  fovereigns  precepts 
of  wife  toleration.  But  whilft  you  are  preaching  up 
toleration,  exclude  not  men  from  it,  who  worfhip 
the  fame  God  you  do,  who  are  your  brethren  by  na- 
ture, your  fathers  in  the  faith,  a  people  who  deferve 
to  be  pitied  on  account  of  their  misfortunes,  and  if 
we  dare  fay  it,  to  be  refpected  on  account  of  their 
antiquity,   religion  and  laws. 

We  are,  and  always  fhall  be,  with  the  higheft  ef- 
teem,  and  the  mod  profound  refpeft, 
Sir, 

your  moft:  obedient  humble  fervants, 
From  the  environs  Jofeph  Ben  Jonathan^ 

^[Uirecht,  j,^^^^  Matlmtai, 

I  a  Nov.    1771.  7-»       ■  J  Twr-      I 

FINIS. 

tually  contradiftinc^himfelf.  And  yet  ler.rned  men  have  extolled  this  work, 
people  of  all  ftations  have  read  it  with  avidity.  Even  women  have  dipt  into 
it  !   O  France  !   What  agre  !    What  tafte  ! 

However  the  infatuation  of  the  publicli  hasheen  but  rtiort.  This  tvart  Mr. 
Voltaire  fays  very  juftly, /j /j//^n  of  it/elf.  This  is  a  convincing  proof,  that  it* 
tranficnt  faccefs  was  rather  owing  to  the  intrigues  of  party,  than  to  its  pre- 
tended graces  of  ftyle.  Therefore  it  could  not  refledl  fhame  either  on  the 
age  or  the  nation.  Difgrace  could  fall  only  on  the  author,  and  on  the 
•wretched  party  that  fupported  him.  And  even  among  this  fmall  flnck,  no 
one  owns  the  Uirth.     Th^y  are  all  aftiamed  of  it.     C'orijl- 

(l)  Tbc  only  folid  bafts  of  civil  ftciety.  On  this  bafis  tlieRoman  orator  foun- 
ded his  commonwealth  and  his  laws.  "  Let  our  citizens,  fays  he,  begin  by 
"  firmly  believing  that  there  are  gods,  maflers  of  ail,  who  govern  all  .... 
*'  Wiiofe  looks  difcover  what  every  one  is,  and  what  he  does."  Sit  igitur 
jam  hoc  a  principio  perfuafum  civibus  dominos  efTc  omnium  rerum  &  mode- 
ratore*  Dcos.  .  .  .  Et  qualis  quifque  fit,  quid  agat,  qui  din  fe  admittat,  in- 
tueri.  'J'his  was  the  opinion  oi  Socrates,  Plato,  Zuleucu?,  and  of  all  the  an- 
cient legillators.  What  a  difference  between  thefe  great  men  and  our 
little  giantt !     Aut. 


CONTENTS. 

Page 
Letter  IX.  Opinions  of  learned  Men  on  the  Pentateuch, 

mentioned  in  the  note,  examined  Ii6 

Letter  X.  Whether   Beltiality   was  common    among  the 

Jews  130 

SECOND     PART. 

Letter  I.   Scope  of  this  Second  Part.  143 

Letter  II.   Confidcrations  on  the  Ritual  Laws  of  the  Jews       146 

Letter  III.  Of  Toleration  among  the  Jews.  That  the 
Jewifh  Religion  was  more  wifely  tolerant  than  other 
ancient  Religions  161 

Letter  IV.   Of  Toleration  under  Mofes.     Extraordinary 

affertions  and  miftakes  of  the  learned  Critick  174 

Letter  V.  Of  Toleration  under  the  Jwdges  and  Kings. 
Explanation  of  different  PafTages  of  Scripture.  Mif- 
takes  and  Mifapplications  of  the  critick  188 

Letter  VI.  Of  the  different  Jewifh  Sefts.     Miftakes  aad 

Contradictions  of  the  learned  Critick  209 

Letter  VII.  Concerning  the  number  of  women  and  cat- 
tle, afferted  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Numbers  to 
be  found  in  the  country  of  the  Madianites  221 

Letter  VIII.  Of  the  Jewifh  Prophets.     The  Critick's  ob- 

jeftions  anfwcred  238 

Letter  IX.  His  ether  objedions  to  the  Prophets  an- 
fwered  252 


V 


'^l;?*-^*^ 


•;^- 


